Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Varche on 01 July 2015, 18:57:28
-
Once again the experts recommend the new runway at Heathrow. makes sense unless you live there.
How long can Cameron kick the can (again) down the road and avoid making an unpopular decision. He says by the end of the year. Ye gods just get on with it. How many more times will there be a report, inquiry, investigation to come up with the same answer.
It will still take another twenty years to build it by which time the rest of Europe will have robbed all our trade and tourism with China and the likes.
Me, I still favour Boris island . An epic world class construction to last 50m years t5hrow in a theme park and a tidal energy barrage as well
PS Gatwick missed a trick. They should have built in free fares to and from London in their bid.
What do you think will happen?
-
Heathrow must be throwing a huge number of brown envelopes about, as according to the locals in the area, half the infasructure and tunnels are already in place. No no, nothing under hand going on here at all. ::)
Even though the area is so rammed solid there simply isn't room for another runway. Bah, but don't let that small inconvenience get in the way. Nooooo... Don't worry about that. Let's make air and road congestion worse, knock down a few thousand houses and worsen house prices and lives still further. Noise and air pollution is already horrific. And not just in the immediate area but under the flight paths as well.
Third runway at Heathrow? Utterly absurd idea.
-
Well it gives me something to watch when sitting in the Cisco Café
-
Big bulldozers should make some room, it makes sense to expand Heathow, unless you live near it.
It's served very well by motorways, trains, tube. It's going to get bogged down in appeal after appeal, but needs to happen.
-
What's wrong wi' horse n cart?
-
Big bulldozers should make some room, it makes sense to expand Heathow, unless you live near it.
It's served very well by motorways, trains, tube. It's going to get bogged down in appeal after appeal, but needs to happen.
Oh really? Why did they build Stanstead then? And Gatwick? And Luton? To take traffic away from Heathrow. Now expanding Haethrow as well? Utter rubbish.
As Borris the bafoon says IMO. It's simply not on to dump this on ANYONES door step.
Although I think Farnborough would be a damn good alternative? Or anywhere else on YOUR doorstep. ;D
-
None of the above are London, people fly to Heathrow for a reason. If I fly to New York, I want to Land in New York. Pointless landing in Boston.
Do you think people love Heathrows art work? Perhaps the view? Nope, they land there cause it's London. Until you remove that need, Heathow will need it expand as we cannot afford a better solution.
Pop something in the Thames Estuary, 4 runways? Add in a high speed rail line and sure maybe the best solution, but country can't afford that.
Maybe we need a war, like last time with Heathrow emergency seizing powers! Get the job jobbed
-
Once again the experts recommend the new runway at Heathrow. makes sense unless you live there.
How long can Cameron kick the can (again) down the road and avoid making an unpopular decision. He says by the end of the year. Ye gods just get on with it. How many more times will there be a report, inquiry, investigation to come up with the same answer.
It will still take another twenty years to build it by which time the rest of Europe will have robbed all our trade and tourism with China and the likes.
Me, I still favour Boris island . An epic world class construction to last 50m years t5hrow in a theme park and a tidal energy barrage as wellMe, I still favour Boris island . An epic world class construction to last 50m years t5hrow in a theme park and a tidal energy barrage as well
PS Gatwick missed a trick. They should have built in free fares to and from London in their bid.
What do you think will happen?
It is obvious you have not got a clue what your on about by the comment i have highlighted.....which idiot would want to land a 747 (or the like) in amongst the biggest LNG terminus in Europe....and as for moving it....where too it was moved 10 years ago and sociatia or what ever they are called payed for the infrastructure to get into/out of the site???....not to mention the 2 nuclear power stations they are now proposing to build....oh and the ship....the one that if it went up would blow all the water out of that stretch of land.....stupidness of the highest order when 40 minutes down the road there is an airport just sitting there unused
-
None of the above are London, people fly to Heathrow for a reason. If I fly to New York, I want to Land in New York. Pointless landing in Boston.
Do you think people love Heathrows art work? Perhaps the view? Nope, they land there cause it's London. Until you remove that need, Heathow will need it expand as we cannot afford a better solution.
Pop something in the Thames Estuary, 4 runways? Add in a high speed rail line and sure maybe the best solution, but country can't afford that.
Maybe we need a war, like last time with Heathrow emergency seizing powers! Get the job jobbed
They land at Heathrow, as that's where the transatlantic gates are. And didn't they make sure of that. Ask Branson. ;D
[Tunnie Mode on]
Do you think it's says London Stanstead on flights from Mercia when actually people want to fly to Bishops oppsin Storford ? ;D
I dint give a monkeys if it's on someone else's doorstep as long as it's not mine ::)
[Tinnie mode off]
Typical Tory boy sheltered Arrogance as usual.
-
None of the above are London.
Really? ;D
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airports_of_London
-
Looking at Google maps. Stanstead airport has acres of space. The area to the north west adjacent to the runway is already airport land anyway. Just re arrange that bit and buy some fields from the farmers.
Jobbed.
But nooooo, it's got to be at Heathrow hast it. ::)
-
Where is the money? The far east. China.
Where are the direct flights INTO capital cities? Not Heathrow but other European capitals are well placed. Leave EU we need better links. No Chinese business man wants to land at Stanstead or Gatwick and then be faced with a long journey to get to his place of business/pleasure after a 15 hour flight or whatever. Spot on Tunnie. Need further convincing? Ask anyone who has flown into Glasgow (Prestwick) or Barcelona (Reus) what an ar*e it is to get to the capital.
Only two choices.
Heathrow. Cheap option but blights lives
Something more creative,world class with superb infrastructure but no money, too many obstacles. The Victorians would have just got on with it. We should have blown the Montgomery up as part of the Olympic Games fireworks like I suggested and provided a few mop and buckets free.
-
Where is the money? The far east. China.
Where are the direct flights INTO capital cities? Not Heathrow but other European capitals are well placed. Leave EU we need better links. No Chinese business man wants to land at Stanstead or Gatwick and then be faced with a long journey to get to his place of business/pleasure after a 15 hour flight or whatever. Spot on Tunnie. Need further convincing? Ask anyone who has flown into Glasgow (Prestwick) or Barcelona (Reus) what an ar*e it is to get to the capital.
Only two choices.
Heathrow. Cheap option but blights lives
Something more creative,world class with superb infrastructure but no money, too many obstacles. The Victorians would have just got on with it. We should have blown the Montgomery up as part of the Olympic Games fireworks like I suggested and provided a few mop and buckets free.
Point is, as far as I'm aware, you fly to where the gate is on that route. Reguardless of where the airport is. Lesser routes get the lesser airport but let's not pretend there is a choice in the matter. And why presume all in bound passengers final destination is in London? I wonder? ;D
Stanstead to London is arguably an easier journey at peak anyway. The M4 is a disaster at the best of times. Never mind with the extra traffic from Heathrow. The Hammersmith flyover is falling down, M25 has 6 lanes already by terminal 5 yet it grinds to a halt on a twice daily basis. A4 is a a joke.... Etc etc. tube is the only help, but your not telling me your international business man is getting the tube, to the city surely?
-
Although I think Farnborough would be a damn good alternative? Or anywhere else on YOUR doorstep. ;D
He he. Closer then you think. Farnborough are already passing brown paper envelopes around behind the scenes to achieve precisely that.
Probably a good time to sell up before it becomes public.
Oh, and if you hear on the news about a whole load of gliders landing there and burning tyres on the runway... :-X
-
Stansted, the originally planned but abolished one at Wing, Gatwick, Luton, none of them are London. And the whole point of hub airports are that they are, well, a hub.
Heathrow makes sense. Well, it makes more sense than the other options. It will cause me more work than any of the other options, but I still feel its the best. And inquiry after inquiry backs this.
We all have to tolerate the inconvenience of supposed progression, be it pointless windmills, the white elephant that is HS2, stupid and dull motor racing events. The proposed ban of night flights may actually improve the area... ...although the area north of heathrow is a bit of a shithole anyway from what I remember last time I was there 4 or 5 years ago.
-
Stansted, the originally planned but abolished one at Wing, Gatwick, Luton, none of them are London. And the whole point of hub airports are that they are, well, a hub.
Heathrow makes sense. Well, it makes more sense than the other options. It will cause me more work than any of the other options, but I still feel its the best. And inquiry after inquiry backs this.
We all have to tolerate the inconvenience of supposed progression, be it pointless windmills, the white elephant that is HS2, stupid and dull motor racing events. The proposed ban of night flights may actually improve the area... ...although the area north of heathrow is a bit of a shithole anyway from what I remember last time I was there 4 or 5 years ago.
It is indeed a shithole. Because of Heathrow.
...and your not really trying to convince anyone that the other airports are not London...? ;D
Faaaark oorrrrphhhh ;D ;D ;D
-
London Gatwick Airport
http://www.aerlingus.com/en-gb/cheap-flights-from-london-gatwick-to-dublin/
-
London Stanstead Airport
http://www.stanstedairport.com
-
London Luton Airport
http://www.london-luton.co.uk/en/
-
:y what about London Durham Tees Valley , they need the custom , place is dying on it's a**e :(
-
Gatwick, Stansted and Luton are all London airports, as are Heathrow and London City...
Stansted has pre approved planning permission for a second terminal and a second runway. But is a billion miles from anywhere useful.
Gatwick's second Runway is a pre approved condition oif the North Terminal, dating back to the early '80s... The reason that it causes so much fuss is that 2019 isn't actually that far off.
Heathrow has no space for another runway. End of.
Way I see it...
Gatwick's runway will happen regardless, the only political football is whether Heathrow or Boris get their runway...
For the record Gatwick has two runways already.
-
And just for Tunnie...
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=your+london+gatwick&client=ms-android-orange-gb&espv=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sboxchip=Images&sa=X&ei=6VqUVaruA-K_ywOL6YDIAQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg&biw=360&bih=511&dpr=3#imgrc=BDWw75EdLwELxM%3A
::)
-
:y what about London Durham Tees Valley , they need the custom , place is dying on it's a**e :(
Never mind the poncy name, it's Teesside Airport.............. :y :y
-
:y what about London Durham Tees Valley , they need the custom , place is dying on it's a**e :(
Never mind the poncy name, it's Teesside Airport.............. :y :y
:( Teesside or Durham tees valley , its in desperate need of some new business , just goes to show the North/South divide :(
-
:y what about London Durham Tees Valley , they need the custom , place is dying on it's a**e :(
Never mind the poncy name, it's Teesside Airport.............. :y :y
:( Teesside or Durham tees valley , its in desperate need of some new business , just goes to show the North/South divide :(
On that point I would have to agree, and yes it is sad.......... ;)
-
Not going to happen unless Easyjet expand some more...
Just look at Birmingham airport... Spent shed loads on improving the infrastructure, yet because Birmingham is a hundred miles from Lumdun, it's of now sodding use to anyone ::)
-
And while we're listing the London airports, don't forget London Lydd.
Where?? I hear you say, that's nowhere near London. At least expanding it would be cheap; a better bike for the airport manager and a couple of shiny new locks for the gate.
As for Boris Island, it's part joke/distraction so that when they approve Heathrow they can claim that the 'better' option* was refused.
* That's 'better' for fantasists who have no practical abilities whatsoever.
-
None of the above are London.
Really? ;D
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airports_of_London
Where do you think/state you live again? Somewhere your postcode says it's not? :D
Heathrow needs the runway, deal with it :y
-
None of the above are London.
Really? ;D
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airports_of_London
Where do you think/state you live again? Somewhere your postcode says it's not? :D
Heathrow needs the runway, deal with it :y
No where near a London airport, that's for sure. ;D although London is 40mins away if travelling at the right times. Especially if trying to catch the curry house before they shut. ;)
There's no doubt there's a need. None at all. It's so great a need that there's a need for a completely new LONDON airport.
-
Farnborough airport is a far better idea. Ready to go as is :y
-
Farnborough airport is a far better idea. Ready to go as is :y
I'd like that, make property price increase even more. Depending on flight paths of course. At uni I lived in Hayes, Middlesex. Right next to Heathrow, never saw or heard planes.
-
Farnborough airport is a far better idea. Ready to go as is :y
I'd like that, make property price increase even more. Depending on flight paths of course. At uni I lived in Hayes, Middlesex. Right next to Heathrow, never saw or heard planes.
Hayes is 4miles NORTH of an east west runway, other side of the M4. So no surprise you didn't hear or see planes.
Move 4 miles east or west under that flight path and see how your house prices do then.
-
Why I said depends on flight plans. ;)
None of the above are London.
Really? ;D
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airports_of_London
Where do you think/state you live again? Somewhere your postcode says it's not? :D
Heathrow needs the runway, deal with it :y
No where near a London airport, that's for sure. ;D although London is 40mins away if travelling at the right times. Especially if trying to catch the curry house before they shut. ;)
There's no doubt there's a need. None at all. It's so great a need that there's a need for a completely new LONDON airport.
I need a completely new Aston Martin, no doubt in that need. But can't afford one, just as country cannot afford a completely new airport. Bodge up Heathrow for now, flatten Slough ;D
-
Stansted, the originally planned but abolished one at Wing, Gatwick, Luton, none of them are London. And the whole point of hub airports are that they are, well, a hub.
Heathrow makes sense.
interesting , they used to keep banging on about hub airports - 'heathrow has to stay a premier hub airport', 'people must stop here on their way from new york to amsterdam' etc etc... but today on the news no mention of hubs, suddenly its all about direct flights , heathrow to some field in china etc... they can't have it both ways.
the whole hub idea is stupid - think about it, what is the only mode of transport that can go directly from one point on land to any point on land in another continent? why would you want to make the aeroplane stop en-route at a 'hub'? why would any business man want to have to change planes at heathrow if they are heading for somewhere else? why would anyone want to fly from heathrow if they live in birmingham?
there should be less hubs not more, using an airport as a hub is a waste of the resource.
-
Once again the experts recommend the new runway at Heathrow. makes sense unless you live there.
How long can Cameron kick the can (again) down the road and avoid making an unpopular decision. He says by the end of the year. Ye gods just get on with it. How many more times will there be a report, inquiry, investigation to come up with the same answer.
It will still take another twenty years to build it by which time the rest of Europe will have robbed all our trade and tourism with China and the likes.
Me, I still favour Boris island . An epic world class construction to last 50m years t5hrow in a theme park and a tidal energy barrage as well
PS Gatwick missed a trick. They should have built in free fares to and from London in their bid.
What do you think will happen?
I'm surprised as the billion pound benefits claimed, but think that if the UK does need more capacity that we should look elsewhere across the UK as opposed to expanding Heathrow
-
Farnborough airport is a far better idea. Ready to go as is :y
I'd like that, make property price increase even more. Depending on flight paths of course.At uni I lived in Hayes, Middlesex. Right next to Heathrow, never saw or heard planes.
Oppsing NIMBY ;D
-
Stansted, the originally planned but abolished one at Wing, Gatwick, Luton, none of them are London. And the whole point of hub airports are that they are, well, a hub.
Heathrow makes sense.
interesting , they used to keep banging on about hub airports - 'heathrow has to stay a premier hub airport', 'people must stop here on their way from new york to amsterdam' etc etc... but today on the news no mention of hubs, suddenly its all about direct flights , heathrow to some field in china etc... they can't have it both ways.
the whole hub idea is stupid - think about it, what is the only mode of transport that can go directly from one point on land to any point on land in another continent? why would you want to make the aeroplane stop en-route at a 'hub'? why would any business man want to have to change planes at heathrow if they are heading for somewhere else? why would anyone want to fly from heathrow if they live in birmingham?
there should be less hubs not more, using an airport as a hub is a waste of the resource.
Yeah, and if it's so important as a hub airport - why not expand an under utilised airport up North?
If the punters are going to rock up, buy a duty free bottle of plonk, fill BAA's coffers and then foxtrott oscar again, will they even notice they've not been to London?
-
Heathrow is the best option. A well established airport full to capacity which airlines and customers want to fly into.
The majority of people living next to Heathrow rely on the airport for employment. I am not just talking about the airport itself but also all the other infrastructures around as well.
As far as the noise and pollution levels are concerned many of the airlines flying into Heathrow use aircraft which are quieter and efficient. Just compare an old 737 to a more modern 737-800 and you can tell the difference. Most of the complaints to Heathrow are made by a very small minority of people whilst most others put up with the slight inconvenience caused by an important business providing a lot of wealth to the area.
Heathrow is very important to the British economy. It is about time a decision was made.
-
Why I said depends on flight plans. ;)
None of the above are London.
Really? ;D
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airports_of_London
Where do you think/state you live again? Somewhere your postcode says it's not? :D
Heathrow needs the runway, deal with it :y
No where near a London airport, that's for sure. ;D although London is 40mins away if travelling at the right times. Especially if trying to catch the curry house before they shut. ;)
There's no doubt there's a need. None at all. It's so great a need that there's a need for a completely new LONDON airport.
I need a completely new Aston Martin, no doubt in that need. But can't afford one, just as country cannot afford a completely new airport. Bodge up Heathrow for now, flatten Slough ;D
Nobody needs an Aston. But you do need to be able to get from A to B without interruption and that's not possible around Heathrow.
And your more than welcome to flatten Slough. But as its 3 or 4 junctions west, outside the m25 and North of the m4, when Heathtiw is South East of the m4 and m25, I don't really see how you think that's relevant to anything remotely aviation related. ;D
-
Once again the experts recommend the new runway at Heathrow. makes sense unless you live there.
How long can Cameron kick the can (again) down the road and avoid making an unpopular decision. He says by the end of the year. Ye gods just get on with it. How many more times will there be a report, inquiry, investigation to come up with the same answer.
It will still take another twenty years to build it by which time the rest of Europe will have robbed all our trade and tourism with China and the likes.
Me, I still favour Boris island . An epic world class construction to last 50m years t5hrow in a theme park and a tidal energy barrage as well
PS Gatwick missed a trick. They should have built in free fares to and from London in their bid.
What do you think will happen?
I agree, the thought of some airlines operating over London into Heathrow still makes me shudder. ???
-
Once again the experts recommend the new runway at Heathrow. makes sense unless you live there.
How long can Cameron kick the can (again) down the road and avoid making an unpopular decision. He says by the end of the year. Ye gods just get on with it. How many more times will there be a report, inquiry, investigation to come up with the same answer.
It will still take another twenty years to build it by which time the rest of Europe will have robbed all our trade and tourism with China and the likes.
Me, I still favour Boris island . An epic world class construction to last 50m years t5hrow in a theme park and a tidal energy barrage as well
PS Gatwick missed a trick. They should have built in free fares to and from London in their bid.
What do you think will happen?
I agree, the thought of some airlines operating over London into Heathrow still makes me shudder. ???
+1 :y
Unfortunately, those that it does not directly affect are usually the ones that want the go ahead on projects. Out of site, out of mind. Whilst I am under the flight paths of a number of airports, Heathrow being one, I am not in the immediate zone of the lower flying aircraft, 5000 to 7000 feet over here usually, but it is other aspects that affect me, for example, family losing property, etc, etc.
The same applies to HS2, but that is nearer to home and another story
-
Once again the experts recommend the new runway at Heathrow. makes sense unless you live there.
How long can Cameron kick the can (again) down the road and avoid making an unpopular decision. He says by the end of the year. Ye gods just get on with it. How many more times will there be a report, inquiry, investigation to come up with the same answer.
It will still take another twenty years to build it by which time the rest of Europe will have robbed all our trade and tourism with China and the likes.
Me, I still favour Boris island . An epic world class construction to last 50m years t5hrow in a theme park and a tidal energy barrage as wellMe, I still favour Boris island . An epic world class construction to last 50m years t5hrow in a theme park and a tidal energy barrage as well
PS Gatwick missed a trick. They should have built in free fares to and from London in their bid.
What do you think will happen?
It is obvious you have not got a clue what your on about by the comment i have highlighted.....which idiot would want to land a 747 (or the like) in amongst the biggest LNG terminus in Europe....and as for moving it....where too it was moved 10 years ago and sociatia or what ever they are called payed for the infrastructure to get into/out of the site???....not to mention the 2 nuclear power stations they are now proposing to build....oh and the ship....the one that if it went up would blow all the water out of that stretch of land.....stupidness of the highest order when 40 minutes down the road there is an airport just sitting there unused
Politicians are expected, to take the long view for the benefit of the country, (but rarely do) and anyone who thinks extending Heathrow will be good for the country in the long term, beyond 50 - 100 years, is, to say the least, not looking very far ahead. If Heathrow is expanded, without allowing night flights, how long do you think it will be before the pressure is on to either allow night flights, or, as I expect, pressure to rise for yet another runway. Government has been kicking this can down the road since the aborted airport proposal for a new airport at Wing in the late 1960's. After nearly 50 years it is time that they sorted it out, not for the next 50 years, but for the foreseeable future. Of course building a new airport in the Estuary will cause huge problems, but, in the long term, even if not this time, it will happen eventually, as Heathrow cannot expand indefinitely.
-
Re the Heathrow / Stansted debate. Heathrow isn't necessarily nearer. It depends whereabouts in London you want to go (its a big place).
Its a half hour from Stansted down to East London. You could never get across from Heathrow in that time, or probably even twice that time.
The city and Canary wharf are in the East of course, so Stansted is closer for them. Although City airport is closer still.
The main problem with Stansted into central London is the crap road network after the bottom of the M11. It will take longer to get from the bottom of the M11 to the City than it takes from Stansted to the bottom of the M11.
It needs the sh1thole that is Whitechapel / Mile end / most of Tower Hamlets demolished and a motorway running down there as far as Aldgate.
Personally, I hate Heathrow. I think it is the worlds worst airport, with Gatwick a close second. If I must use a U.K. airport I always opt for Stansted if at all possible.
No point in building an airport further north unfortunately. People want to travel to London. That's where all the business is done and all the money is to be made, and that isn't going to change in the foreseeable future, regardless of Osbornes rhetoric about a Northern powerhouse etc.
-
Farnborough airport is a far better idea. Ready to go as is :y
Farnboroughs runway is 8005' long - which is only just long enough to get a 737-800 fully loaded with bucket and spaders off to Benidorm. A fully loaded 747 or A380 needs 10000+, and preferably 12000 ish. There are plenty of 7500-8000' runways in the London area that could be used for domestic and short haul, but these are all useless for long haul. The only 10000+ runways currently available in the south east are Heathrow's 27L/R (both 12000+), Gatwick's 26L (10879') and Stansted's 22 (10003').
Gatwick does, notionally at least, already have 2 runways as the parallel taxiway can be used if required. But 26R is only 8400' long (useless for long haul), and is only 200m from the main runway, so cannot be used simultaneously. Minimum separation for runways in parallel use is 1300m. Heathrow's two current runways are 1400m apart.
IMV, both Heathrow and Gatwick should get another 10000' runway. The only other option is to adopt the Munich/Berlin/CdG approach and build a new super airport somewhere to the west/north west of London in green belt land. Boris Island is in the wrong place - impossible to get to from most of the UK.
Not going to happen any time soon due to NIMBYs.
-
Fransbog is far easier to extend, rather than the upheaval caused at Haethrow.
Although sadly the area to the south west would be favourite as its scrub land and a road to move. Rather than any chance them needing to flatten Tunnies house to accommodate it. :( ;D
Although there's always hope he'll get his chance to see some planes under the flight path. :y
Hell there's room for two runways at Farnborough. :y
-
I don't see what all the discussion is about. The population of the world will continue to grow exponentially, sooner or later every piece of real estate that exists will be used for a purpose. Then, unless we get to another planet or do a Logans run, we will all die.
Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think.
-
Fransbog is far easier to extend, rather than the upheaval caused at Haethrow.
Although sadly the area to the south west would be favourite as its scrub land and a road to move. Rather than any chance them needing to flatten Tunnies house to accommodate it. :( ;D
Although there's always hope he'll get his chance to see some planes under the flight path. :y
Hell there's room for two runways at Farnborough. :y
Nope - I haven't got my AIP's handy, but I'd be surprised if the current FAB runway has a weight loading capability to take modern heavies. You cant go thumping 500+ tons of heavy into any old strip of concrete/tarmac. So to "extend" FAB you'd actually have to dig up the existing runway and re-lay it with stronger foundations, extend it by three quarters of a mile, and build another similar runway 1300m to the north or south. Then build all the terminal buildings and other support infrastructure. You're effectively building a whole new airport, and if you're doing that you wouldn't put it there unless you're prepared to demolish Farnborough town (as Yeovil Town used to do regularly :-) )
I'd be all for a brand new super airport at Stonehenge East - aka Boscombe Down. An hour closer to me, already got a 10K footer and almost infinite room for expansion all over Sailsbury plain. Eco-mentalists wouldn't agree though.
-
The plans look quite reasonable to me (viewable on line)
-
I don't see what all the discussion is about. The population of the world will continue to grow exponentially, sooner or later every piece of real estate that exists will be used for a purpose. Then, unless we get to another planet or do a Logans run, we will all die.
Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think.
world population 7 billion, isle of anglesey 7.7 billion square feet. we can all fit there with 1 square foot each. some people could even have a garden :)
-
I don't see what all the discussion is about. The population of the world will continue to grow exponentially, sooner or later every piece of real estate that exists will be used for a purpose. Then, unless we get to another planet or do a Logans run, we will all die.
Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think.
world population 7 billion, isle of anglesey 7.7 billion square feet. we can all fit there with 1 square foot each. some people could even have a garden :)
Some people would require more then 1 square foot, mind. Some of them might even be members here. :-X
-
I don't see what all the discussion is about. The population of the world will continue to grow exponentially, sooner or later every piece of real estate that exists will be used for a purpose. Then, unless we get to another planet or do a Logans run, we will all die.
Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think.
world population 7 billion, isle of anglesey 7.7 billion square feet. we can all fit there with 1 square foot each. some people could even have a garden :)
Another ten thousand or so since you posted.
-
The solution is very, very easy. Have a national referendum on flying. If you agree that the Government should be given a mandate to expand any airport as necessary to meet demand, then you vote yes and in return you get a yes stamp in your passport and can use any UK airport. If you don't have a yes stamp then you are banned from using any UK airport. I think you will then find the number of Nimbys will diappear at the thought of losing their winter skiing, regular stag weekends, not to mention their two weeks on the Costa Del Slaughtered. ??? ??? ???
I use aircraft and fly, hate the regular long delays where Heathrow and Gatwick runway capacity are running at near to 100% and want my airport where they are quick and easy to reach, which isn't Stansted or Luton or anything further afield. I have used Luton several time over that last few years even though it is more difficult to get to but I don't suffer hours of delays if the aircraft was slightly late landing or turning around and missed it's takeoff slot so you have to wait 6 hours for another one! >:( >:( >:( >:(
Boris estuary will NEVER happen and is like Stansted and Luton, the wrong side of London, with long journey times from the second richest wealth creating area after London in the UK. The M3, M4 corridor. Heathrow is successful and needs to be expanded where it is an airport in the right place for 10's of millions of people to get to very easily. Those that support Boris Island have you thought about all the housing and infrastructure needed for the 100,000+ direct and indirect employees that currently work at heathrow, the logistics of moving them and the effects on the communities they would leave, including house prices. Plus, Schiphol means it will be fine as long as you don't use it for aircraft takeoffs or landings towards the east as they have already stated, they will keep and enforce, here before you rights to that airspace. :o :o :o :o
Where I am we get quite a lot of aircraft noise from Heathrow, it is the price of convenience, likewise the traffic noise where I live near a main road, having neighbour noise where I live in a town etc, etc. If you want a quiet life, the Scottish highlands have much to commend for such peace, but don't expect less than a 50 mile round trip for your nearest supermarket, pub, restaurant, pub, doctor and dentist, all of which are within a few 100 metres from where I live. Nothing in life is free, which any engineer and scientist will tell you, what you gain from this design, you will lose from, this, this and this. Nature and life are like that, make your choices and accept the compromises.
As I've stated before, turning Farnborough into an International airport is fine by me.
-
An interesting overlap here as I also fly a lot, with lots of long haul.
I hate getting to Gatwick but can tolerate Heathrow.....so the only overlap on access is Heathrow....
-
Boris Island - or something similar - will happen, it is only a question of when the decision is made. In the next ten years? I doubt it. In the next 50? Perhaps. In the next 100, definitely. So bite the bullet now and get on with it, and stop inflicting noise pain, and the present danger to inhabitants of London ASAP. :y
I wonder if all those advocating the expansion of Heathrow are aware of the operating standards of foreign airlines operating into LHR. Consider this, international agreements are in place to ensure that all airlines operate to certain standards, this enables long haul British Airlines to operate into the far flung corners of the world, and in return allows their airlines to operate into London. I know from my previous employment as an instructor with a British Airline, and as a technical rep. for BALPA, that my airline made every effort to operate to these standards. Am I convinced that every foreign airline flying over the centre of London does the same? In a word, No. :-X
-
Bristol is our current airport of choice - decent selection of Sleasy Jet and Rhino Air destinations, but no Long haul. 45 mins from here, but more importantly you can walk to/from long stay car park to terminal in 5 minutes, and immigration rarely takes 5 minutes. All that means that from crash landing on the runway at 11pm on a Sunday evening to front door can be done in an hour. However, the short runway (6600') means no long haul flights.
We also regularly use Heathrow, Luton and Gatwick - all much of a muchness and less than 2 hours drive. For long haul we prefer Gatwick to Heathrow, but you have to go where the airlines fly from - which like it or not is Heathrow.
I've used Southampton, Bournemouth and Exeter, but prices are high and flight destinations and timings are generally poor.
Stansted - Arrrgggg - 2.5 hour drive (on a good day), 30 minutes waiting for a bus to/from long stay, 1 hour to get through immigration (longer on a Sunday evening), Fracking stupid train thing to get to/from terminal to departure gates. Why the hell didn't they use the monorail to get to/from Long stay instead (like in San Fransisco)? For a 'new' airport it's an abortion.
And whoever invented "Remote Parking" of aircraft airside so that you have to get a bus to/from the aircraft wants a kicking.
-
The solution is very, very easy. Have a national referendum on flying. If you agree that the Government should be given a mandate to expand any airport as necessary to meet demand, then you vote yes and in return you get a yes stamp in your passport and can use any UK airport. If you don't have a yes stamp then you are banned from using any UK airport. I think you will then find the number of Nimbys will diappear at the thought of losing their winter skiing, regular stag weekends, not to mention their two weeks on the Costa Del Slaughtered. ??? ??? ???
I use aircraft and fly, hate the regular long delays where Heathrow and Gatwick runway capacity are running at near to 100% and want my airport where they are quick and easy to reach, which isn't Stansted or Luton or anything further afield. I have used Luton several time over that last few years even though it is more difficult to get to but I don't suffer hours of delays if the aircraft was slightly late landing or turning around and missed it's takeoff slot so you have to wait 6 hours for another one! >:( >:( >:( >:(
Boris estuary will NEVER happen and is like Stansted and Luton, the wrong side of London, with long journey times from the second richest wealth creating area after London in the UK. The M3, M4 corridor. Heathrow is successful and needs to be expanded where it is an airport in the right place for 10's of millions of people to get to very easily. Those that support Boris Island have you thought about all the housing and infrastructure needed for the 100,000+ direct and indirect employees that currently work at heathrow, the logistics of moving them and the effects on the communities they would leave, including house prices. Plus, Schiphol means it will be fine as long as you don't use it for aircraft takeoffs or landings towards the east as they have already stated, they will keep and enforce, here before you rights to that airspace. :o :o :o :o
Where I am we get quite a lot of aircraft noise from Heathrow, it is the price of convenience, likewise the traffic noise where I live near a main road, having neighbour noise where I live in a town etc, etc. If you want a quiet life, the Scottish highlands have much to commend for such peace, but don't expect less than a 50 mile round trip for your nearest supermarket, pub, restaurant, pub, doctor and dentist, all of which are within a few 100 metres from where I live. Nothing in life is free, which any engineer and scientist will tell you, what you gain from this design, you will lose from, this, this and this. Nature and life are like that, make your choices and accept the compromises.
As I've stated before, turning Farnborough into an International airport is fine by me.
I said at the beginning Heathrow extra runway is a no brainer and the country should just get on with it. I wonder just how France and Spain managed their massive infrastructure projects this last decade unlike our trifling few( Crossrail excepted)? I use Boris island as an example of what could be achieved with far thinking and once again refer to the Victorian engineers. Need more housing? Well build more land near but not that near to the new airport. That at a stroke frees up housing for more immigrants. Poor roads and rail links? Build some more OVER the existing congested dross. Use new technology- Maglev or its successor. New airport to centre of London etc so fast your sick gets left behind. Sadly Britain has wasted twenty maybe fifty years in getting infrastructure in place by passing the buck to the next parliament.
-
Bristol is our current airport of choice - decent selection of Sleasy Jet and Rhino Air destinations, but no Long haul. 45 mins from here, but more importantly you can walk to/from long stay car park to terminal in 5 minutes, and immigration rarely takes 5 minutes. All that means that from crash landing on the runway at 11pm on a Sunday evening to front door can be done in an hour. However, the short runway (6600') means no long haul flights.
We also regularly use Heathrow, Luton and Gatwick - all much of a muchness and less than 2 hours drive. For long haul we prefer Gatwick to Heathrow, but you have to go where the airlines fly from - which like it or not is Heathrow.
I've used Southampton, Bournemouth and Exeter, but prices are high and flight destinations and timings are generally poor.
Stansted - Arrrgggg - 2.5 hour drive (on a good day), 30 minutes waiting for a bus to/from long stay, 1 hour to get through immigration (longer on a Sunday evening), Fracking stupid train thing to get to/from terminal to departure gates. Why the hell didn't they use the monorail to get to/from Long stay instead (like in San Fransisco)? For a 'new' airport it's an abortion.
And whoever invented "Remote Parking" of aircraft airside so that you have to get a bus to/from the aircraft wants a kicking.
LCO122G. Simple question. Why don't they double the length of Bristol runway to facilitate long haul flights. That would save the road congestion of a plane load of folk driving towards London and its longer runways?
I am with you on the interminable delays you outline. I vowed never to use Stansted again after a duff experience there. Hardly any airports seem to think of their customers. It is all about their process. even simple things like the barriers for guiding you to the next process. No one waiting? You still have to walk a mile because they don't open a short cut. Have you ever seen anyone taken away at immigration?
-
Boris Island - or something similar - will happen, it is only a question of when the decision is made.
It won't. It might work as a hub airport, but so would an airport built at Rockall. Any new airport would have to be sited where the maximum number of UK passengers could easily access it. That probably means somewhere close to the London end of the HS2 route, so the ex RAF Upper Heyford, or RAF Gaydon would be good choices. But you're back in the land of Tory NIMBY's so it just won't happen. Boris Island only gets put forward because it shifts Tory problems out to sea - literally.
The money for this is going to have to come from private sources - not government taxation. So private investors are going to want a return on their money. They're not going to fund Boris Island, because they know that no-one can get to it. So its Heathrow and Gatwick or nothing. And whilst the Tories are in it'll be nothing.
-
LCO122G. Simple question. Why don't they double the length of Bristol runway to facilitate long haul flights. That would save the road congestion of a plane load of folk driving towards London and its longer runways?
Because the local NIMBY's run the local council, and they object to most airport improvement proposals. Access is carp - there isn't even a decent road from the M5 (or more importantly A37) to the airport. They've only just passed plans to build an on airport hotel. The airport has grown massively in the past 10 years despite the locals, not because of them.
-
Boris Island - or something similar - will happen, it is only a question of when the decision is made.
It won't. It might work as a hub airport, but so would an airport built at Rockall. Any new airport would have to be sited where the maximum number of UK passengers could easily access it. That probably means somewhere close to the London end of the HS2 route, so the ex RAF Upper Heyford, or RAF Gaydon would be good choices. But you're back in the land of Tory NIMBY's so it just won't happen. Boris Island only gets put forward because it shifts Tory problems out to sea - literally.
The money for this is going to have to come from private sources - not government taxation. So private investors are going to want a return on their money. They're not going to fund Boris Island, because they know that no-one can get to it. So its Heathrow and Gatwick or nothing. And whilst the Tories are in it'll be nothing.
But they will eventually, because access and infrastructure will have been put in place! Again you are thinking short term. See my post above. :y
-
But they will eventually, because access and infrastructure will have been put in place! Again you are thinking short term. See my post above. :y
No - it's basic chicken and egg stuff. No-one will fund an airport with no connections, and no-one can afford to fund an airport AND connections. Things have to be built within the constraints of the existing infrastructure, or with minimal alterations/additions (meaning cheap) to it. New motorways and high speed trains to a non existant islands in the middle of the Thames - no chance.
-
But they will eventually, because access and infrastructure will have been put in place! Again you are thinking short term. See my post above. :y
No - it's basic chicken and egg stuff. No-one will fund an airport with no connections, and no-one can afford to fund an airport AND connections. Things have to be built within the constraints of the existing infrastructure, or with minimal alterations/additions (meaning cheap) to it. New motorways and high speed trains to a non existant islands in the middle of the Thames - no chance.
It was done in Hong Kong when the new airport was built there in the 1990's, ironically by mostly British companies. :y
Granted the 'indentured' Filipino and Nepalese workforce meant that costs were much lower. ::)
-
It was done in Hong Kong when the new airport was built there in the 1990's, ironically by mostly British companies. :y
Granted the 'indentured' Filipino and Nepalese workforce meant that costs were much lower. ::)
I didn't say it can't be done. I'm saying it won't be done here - for both monetary and political reasons. Osaka also built a new airport in the middle of the sea, and the USMC are supposed to be building a new airbase off the coast of Japan so they can move out of Iwakuni.
Plenty of new airports have been built on land out of city the cities they serve - off the top of my head Munich, Dallas, Narita, Berlin, Shanghai, Arlanda. Even Charles de Gaule is basically a new airport. Heathrow was a new airport once with 6 runways. It replaced Croyden and Northolt.
-
It was done in Hong Kong when the new airport was built there in the 1990's, ironically by mostly British companies. :y
Granted the 'indentured' Filipino and Nepalese workforce meant that costs were much lower. ::)
I didn't say it can't be done. I'm saying it won't be done here - for both monetary and political reasons. Osaka also built a new airport in the middle of the sea, and the USMC are supposed to be building a new airbase off the coast of Japan so they can move out of Iwakuni.
Plenty of new airports have been built on land out of city the cities they serve - off the top of my head Munich, Dallas, Narita, Berlin, Shanghai, Arlanda. Even Charles de Gaule is basically a new airport. Heathrow was a new airport once with 6 runways. It replaced Croyden and Northolt.
Worth noting that Gatwick has grown and developed alongside Croydon, and later, Heathrow. It isn't an alternative, it is an as well as ;)
-
I don't see what all the discussion is about. The population of the world will continue to grow exponentially, sooner or later every piece of real estate that exists will be used for a purpose. Then, unless we get to another planet or do a Logans run, we will all die.
Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think.
world population 7 billion, isle of anglesey 7.7 billion square feet. we can all fit there with 1 square foot each. some people could even have a garden :)
[/highlight]
All Oofer's would need to live in an Omega Enclave, it would be the only possible way to have enough room for a Cambelt Meet!
Mind you, organising 'Newent-on-Anglesea' would be a piece of cake ;D
-
I apologise if for some reason it is thought that I am suggesting that a 'Boris Island' or similar will happen in the near future, merely, for the reasons advocated above, that it should. Given that it is 50 years or so since the Wing airport proposal was abandoned, it may well be 100 years before a BI is built, but given the continuing population increase in this country, and the fact that the demand for air travel grows almost exponentially, eventually it is inevitable that the option to add more runway capacity at existing airports will not be available. So, unless the country becomes a dictatorship, it will become necessary to build an airport in 'free' space, no matter how strategically and logistically impossible it may appear to us at the moment. It will happen eventually, therefore I argue that better sooner rather than later. However given, as I suggested earlier, that politicians invariably take a short term view - i.e. How many votes is this worth at the next election? - I have no doubt that, as usual, they will either fudge the issue, or go for one of the proposed options, which IMHO is selling the country short in the long term.:y
-
It was done in Hong Kong when the new airport was built there in the 1990's, ironically by mostly British companies. :y
Granted the 'indentured' Filipino and Nepalese workforce meant that costs were much lower. ::)
I didn't say it can't be done. I'm saying it won't be done here - for both monetary and political reasons. Osaka also built a new airport in the middle of the sea, and the USMC are supposed to be building a new airbase off the coast of Japan so they can move out of Iwakuni.
Plenty of new airports have been built on land out of city the cities they serve - off the top of my head Munich, Dallas, Narita, Berlin, Shanghai, Arlanda. Even Charles de Gaule is basically a new airport. Heathrow was a new airport once with 6 runways. It replaced Croyden and Northolt.
Worth noting that Gatwick has grown and developed alongside Croydon, and later, Heathrow. It isn't an alternative, it is an as well as ;)
Gatwick's issue is that it is an r-sole to get to for virtually everyone, with relatively poor links.
-
By the time they build Boris Island, we will all be using supersonic maglev trains and it will be obsolete. ::) ::) ::)
The first very high speed trains like Musks' Hyperloop are probably 20 to 30 years away and supersonic maglev trains about 50 years and will run in semi-vacuum tubes. :y :y :y One advantage of maglev trains over aircraft is energy efficiency as much of the energy used for accelerating them up to speed can be recovered with regenerative braking. :y :y :y
-
It was done in Hong Kong when the new airport was built there in the 1990's, ironically by mostly British companies. :y
Granted the 'indentured' Filipino and Nepalese workforce meant that costs were much lower. ::)
I didn't say it can't be done. I'm saying it won't be done here - for both monetary and political reasons. Osaka also built a new airport in the middle of the sea, and the USMC are supposed to be building a new airbase off the coast of Japan so they can move out of Iwakuni.
Plenty of new airports have been built on land out of city the cities they serve - off the top of my head Munich, Dallas, Narita, Berlin, Shanghai, Arlanda. Even Charles de Gaule is basically a new airport. Heathrow was a new airport once with 6 runways. It replaced Croyden and Northolt.
Worth noting that Gatwick has grown and developed alongside Croydon, and later, Heathrow. It isn't an alternative, it is an as well as ;)
Gatwick's issue is that it is an r-sole to get to for virtually everyone, with relatively poor links.
Is it really? One junction from the M25, and on the Victoria/Brighton mainline... ::)
True, it might be a bit further round the M25 from Brackley on Sea, but then Heathrow is hardly convenient for anyone east of the M1 :D
-
It was done in Hong Kong when the new airport was built there in the 1990's, ironically by mostly British companies. :y
Granted the 'indentured' Filipino and Nepalese workforce meant that costs were much lower. ::)
I didn't say it can't be done. I'm saying it won't be done here - for both monetary and political reasons. Osaka also built a new airport in the middle of the sea, and the USMC are supposed to be building a new airbase off the coast of Japan so they can move out of Iwakuni.
Plenty of new airports have been built on land out of city the cities they serve - off the top of my head Munich, Dallas, Narita, Berlin, Shanghai, Arlanda. Even Charles de Gaule is basically a new airport. Heathrow was a new airport once with 6 runways. It replaced Croyden and Northolt.
Worth noting that Gatwick has grown and developed alongside Croydon, and later, Heathrow. It isn't an alternative, it is an as well as ;)
Gatwick's issue is that it is an r-sole to get to for virtually everyone, with relatively poor links.
Is it really? One junction from the M25, and on the Victoria/Brighton mainline... ::)
True, it might be a bit further round the M25 from Brackley on Sea, but then Heathrow is hardly convenient for anyone east of the M1 :D
Don't forget the Reading / Redhill Gatwick slug. 3 carriage DMUs, this makes it an easy journey for me, when it is running as they seem to often breakdown. :o :o :o
-
You can actually get direct trains all over the place from Gatwick, upto Bedford or Reading without changing... and actually allowing for a single change, you have access to pretty much anywhere in the UK :y
-
By the time they build Boris Island, we will all be using teleportation and it will be obsolete. ::) ::) ::)
Beam me up Scotty! ;D
-
Like it or not, Heathrow is the only viable option for another London Runway... Stanstead and Luton have night flight restrictions. Gatwick might, but they were supposed to have been lifted a while back to a reduction instead of stop.
Heathrow is served by a good motorway network (on paper, we all know it struggles), tube and coaches. It has the land and, like it or not, one of the easiest approaches for the aircraft.
Gatwick has a mainline train... Other than that it struggles. The road approach is limited. Plus, and more importantly, the land surrounding it would need a lot of expensive work to make it suitable due to flooding and lack of infrastructure.
Now Stanstead would make a little sense if it wasn't one of the main European options for hijacked aircraft... Get one of those in and the airport is locked down ::)
Luton has to close in bad weather because of the high population density around the airfield and, I believe, a runway too short to allow a decent margin of error when having to land purely on ILS.
Southend has expanded but, again, doesn't have the infrastructure to support another runway.
Boris Island? Just moronic really... A great idea in principle but completely impractical.
Nope, I'm afraid Heathrow just floats to the top every time. On the plus side, it will bring a lot of employment and money to the area ::)
-
Incidentally, the runway where I live is a shuttle landing option so suitable for heavy and long haul. I'd welcome the expansion and building of an airport. The compulsory purchase on my house would be just the push we need to emigrate! ::) :D
-
Incidentally, the runway where I live is a shuttle landing option so suitable for heavy and long haul. I'd welcome the expansion and building of an airport. The compulsory purchase on my house would be just the push we need to emigrate! ::) :D
There are several suitable airfields dotted around... Unfortunately they are now housing estates (Greenham Common), in use (Brize Norton), or at the wrong end of the A11 (Lakenheath) ::)
So we're stuck with what we have, at least geographically...
Incidentally, don't tell Kevin, but I did a project at school proposing a brand new airport at West Tisted... iirc it's geographically suitable :D
The future could be smaller airports with heavy capacity, owned and operated by single carriers with feeder flights...
Not convinced? Take Dubai... Dnata is owned by the brother of the chap who owns Emirates. They operate Dubai airport and provide all the ground handling. They have just started operating the Emirates ground handling at Gatwick. Emirates happen to have large interest in Airbus, and also, more significantly in Easy Jet.
It wouldn't take much of a leap to acquire an underused RAF base, build a double sided Terminal with 10 A380 gates on one side and twenty A318/319/320/321 gates on the other.
The basic premise being that a single carrier could land all their longhaul flights from their home hub in one place and operate a regional feeder service using their local pet airline.
BA used to do it to good effect from Gatwick, they basically paid for the North Terminal (and later the runway extension), using Cityflyer as their regional shuttle to feed their European and International services.
If the government and airports don't do summat, some one will, and it's looking like the future could be orange, with an Arabian flourish :-\
-
Incidentally, the runway where I live is a shuttle landing option so suitable for heavy and long haul. I'd welcome the expansion and building of an airport. The compulsory purchase on my house would be just the push we need to emigrate! ::) :D
Sorry, but no it wasn't - and no it isn't.
RAF Fairford (10000') was the only designated shuttle landing site in the UK. Many sites were looked at and some were certified as suitable (including Manston, Elvingdon, St Mawgan, Macrihanish), but Fairford was the only one actually selected - although it was never used.
RAF Woodbridge is/was 9000' long. RAF Benidioters is/was 8940' long. RAF Wattisham is 7983'. You need at least 10000' for long haul to be viable. There are very few 10000' runways in the UK - Heathrow (2), Gatwick (1), Manchester (2), Birmingham (1), Stanstead (1), Brize (1), Fairford (1) and Macrihanish(1). Manchester and Birmingham have had recent extensions. Brize, Fairford, (and Greenham) were all USAF fields that were extended to 10000' during the cold war. Most UK military fighter bases are/were 7500'-8000', and V bomber bases were 9000'.
Local NIMBY's have already placed limits on the number of movements allowed at Benidioters every year, and that's just for warbirds like Spitfires etc. And Sizewell B is inconvenient too.
Not sure what's going on with the swear filter - it's RAF B e n t w a t e r s !
-
That would also rule Farnborough out as runway is 8000ft with no easy options for making longer.
-
Incidentally, the runway where I live is a shuttle landing option so suitable for heavy and long haul. I'd welcome the expansion and building of an airport. The compulsory purchase on my house would be just the push we need to emigrate! ::) :D
Sorry, but no it wasn't - and no it isn't.
RAF Fairford (10000') was the only designated shuttle landing site in the UK. Many sites were looked at and some were certified as suitable (including Manston, Elvingdon, St Mawgan, Macrihanish), but Fairford was the only one actually selected - although it was never used.
RAF Woodbridge is/was 9000' long. RAF Benidioters is/was 8940' long. RAF Wattisham is 7983'. You need at least 10000' for long haul to be viable. There are very few 10000' runways in the UK - Heathrow (2), Gatwick (1), Manchester (2), Birmingham (1), Stanstead (1), Brize (1), Fairford (1) and Macrihanish(1). Manchester and Birmingham have had recent extensions. Brize, Fairford, (and Greenham) were all USAF fields that were extended to 10000' during the cold war. Most UK military fighter bases are/were 7500'-8000', and V bomber bases were 9000'.
Local NIMBY's have already placed limits on the number of movements allowed at Benidioters every year, and that's just for warbirds like Spitfires etc. And Sizewell B is inconvenient too.
Not sure what's going on with the swear filter - it's RAF B e n t w a t e r s !
I apologise... Must be one of those Urban Legends as it was described as one of the longest and widest usable runways until the one in Spain took over.
I can confirm that the surface is almost immaculate, although there are large shrubs and trees growing between the runway and taxi ways (which are in poor condition) and that we generally only see Apache and Osprey aircraft here now, with the occasional Chinook!!
-
Benidioters
All yes it's the Stmo twhat factor playing up again ;D
-
I apologise... Must be one of those Urban Legends as it was described as one of the longest and widest usable runways until the one in Spain took over.
Yes - Urban Ledgend I'm afraid (and apologies not required). Many military bases have the Space Shuttle story attached to them. I spent many hours in Rendlesham Forrest, near Wantisden Church and up Friday Street in the 1980's. Woodbridge does indeed have a very wide runway - Originally it was three times the normal width, and used as 3 separate runways for emergencies.
-
Gatwicks 08L/26R is just over 3000m long if landing west to east, and will easily accept a wide body jet in emergency situations without issue... have watched a Northwest MD11 make an unpowered landing on it following a total hydraulic failure, engines off the second it touched down, the aircraft came to a controlled stop just before the eastern threshold. And you could physically use it simultaneously with no issues for take offs/landings, afterall it is used as a Taxiway most of the time making a mockery of operational runway separation regs.
It wouldn't surprise me if a last minute proposal was made to allow simultaneous use of both runways for single aisle aircraft on an experimental basis with arrivals on the northern runway and departures on the southern one, thereby placing a practical limitation on two runway operations, whilst negating physical and environmental costs by not having to build another runway outside the current perimeter... :-\
-
Gatwicks 08L/26R is just over 3000m long if landing west to east,
The currently certified length for 08L/26R is 8415' (2564m) in both directions.
and will easily accept a wide body jet in emergency situations without issue... have watched a Northwest MD11 make an unpowered landing on it following a total hydraulic failure, engines off the second it touched down, the aircraft came to a controlled stop just before the eastern threshold.
The two extreme cases are 1) Landing at max landing weight on a wet runway. 2) Taking off at max all up weight on a wet runway. 8415' is not enough under these conditions for a modern heavy - and even 10000' is marginal.
And you could physically use it simultaneously with no issues for take offs/landings, afterall it is used as a Taxiway most of the time making a mockery of operational runway separation regs.
It wouldn't surprise me if a last minute proposal was made to allow simultaneous use of both runways for single aisle aircraft on an experimental basis with arrivals on the northern runway and departures on the southern one, thereby placing a practical limitation on two runway operations, whilst negating physical and environmental costs by not having to build another runway outside the current perimeter... :-\
See Section 3.1.11 of this :
http://www.icao.int/safety/Implementation/Library/Manual%20Aerodrome%20Stds.pdf
Runway separation is as much to do with wake turbulence. The ICAO minimum is 1035m for independent operation. This can be reduced (to 760m) if the runways are synchronised, but that also places restrictions on operation in bad weather. Gatwicks runways are only 200m apart - no chance anyone will certify them for simultaneous use.
Runway 08L/26R is a non-instrument runway and will only be used when Runway 08R/26L is temporarily non-operational by reason of
maintenance or accident. Additionally, during months where planned maintenance does not take place, Runway 08L/26R will be in use on the
first Tuesday morning of each month from 0100 to 0400 (Winter) and 0001 to 0300 (Summer) for lighting checks, subject to weather and
confirmation on ATIS.
d. Use of Runway 08L/26R
Runway 08L/26R cannot be used simultaneously with Runway 08R/26L because of insufficient separation between the two. For this reason
also, extensive safeguarding procedures are required (see d ii) before Runway 08L/26R can be activated and the runway is not available on
request by pilots.
Lighting for the closed runway and parallel taxiway will not be visible on approach.
e. Restriction of Operation
i. During Runway 08L/26R operations, delays may occur to aircraft taxiing on the aerodrome due to the following:
1. The parallel taxiway is limited to use by aircraft of wingspan 30 m or below during actual take-offs or landings on Runway 08L/26R
2. Additional restrictions when the Ground Movement Radar (GMR) is not available
ii. When Runway 08L/26R is being brought into planned use the aerodrome will be closed for a period of up to 15 minutes to allow the
necessary safeguarding procedures to be implemented. The same will apply when Runway 08R/26L is brought back into use. In an
emergency situation, implementation of the change to Runway 08L/26R can be expected to take substantially longer.
-
Incidentally, the runway where I live is a shuttle landing option so suitable for heavy and long haul. I'd welcome the expansion and building of an airport. The compulsory purchase on my house would be just the push we need to emigrate! ::) :D
Sorry, but no it wasn't - and no it isn't.
RAF Fairford (10000') was the only designated shuttle landing site in the UK. Many sites were looked at and some were certified as suitable (including Manston, Elvingdon, St Mawgan, Macrihanish), but Fairford was the only one actually selected - although it was never used.
RAF Woodbridge is/was 9000' long. RAF Benidioters is/was 8940' long. RAF Wattisham is 7983'. You need at least 10000' for long haul to be viable. There are very few 10000' runways in the UK - Heathrow (2), Gatwick (1), Manchester (2), Birmingham (1), Stanstead (1), Brize (1), Fairford (1) and Macrihanish(1). Manchester and Birmingham have had recent extensions. Brize, Fairford, (and Greenham) were all USAF fields that were extended to 10000' during the cold war. Most UK military fighter bases are/were 7500'-8000', and V bomber bases were 9000'.
Local NIMBY's have already placed limits on the number of movements allowed at Benidioters every year, and that's just for warbirds like Spitfires etc. And Sizewell B is inconvenient too.
Not sure what's going on with the swear filter - it's RAF B e n t w a t e r s !
IIRC. isn't Upper Heyford 11000' ?
-
heathrow, would have had the capacity to expand 10 years ago,if the stupid council round here(they drink the water) had allowed raf alconbury to become the airfreight hub that they were planning it to become,the rail links were planned, the roads are here A14-A1, A14 upgrade has started. but no a few envolpes and it is now a ruddy white elephant. :(
-
IIRC. isn't Upper Heyford 11000' ?
Upper Heyford 09/27 9592', 2924m
Alconbury 12/30 9009', 2746m
Lakenheath 06/24 9000', 2743m
Mildenhall 11/29 9240', 2816m
Wethersfield 10/28 9088', 2770m
Sculthorpe 06/24 9004', 2744m
Some of these have under-runs that can be used to extend the take off length by 1000', but Upper Heyford isn't one of them.