U.K. and Ireland - Rothwell Aviation releases plans to turn Northolt into Heathrow North

http://media.aerosociety.com/aerospace-insight/2012/06/01/north-by-northolt/6875/

Look like sensible plans

Basic points are -

- Re allign Northolt runway and extend to 2,400 metres
- Construct a modern passenger terminal
- Built a high speed rail line to Heathrow 'South'
- Allow passengers to transfer between both sites in 15 minutes

The genius of this plan is that it could allow the government to dig itself out of a large hole. The government could get the best of both world's by effectively sticking to its promise of 'No new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted' because this would not be a 'new runway' just an upgrading of an existing runway. They could also solve the aviation crisis for around 10 years and it would stop them from an embarrassing U turn on building the third runway at Sipson.

Thoughts????

Who would fly to Heathrow North?

I would move all BA short haul, Finnair, Aer Lingus and Iberias to it and allow easy 'airside' transfers to T5 on the high speed rail link to allow people to get to the BA long haul network easily. With the slots freed up at T5 from the Iberia and BA short hauls leaving I would move American Airlines and Qantas in to allow for an easy 'OneWorld' style operation.

All sounds great unless you live in West London.

All sounds great unless you live in West London.

I know but its not like West London is free of noise now is it?

I refer colleagues to my identical proposal on a couple of threads here in the recent past :D

Don't expect me to disagree strongly.

I know but its not like West London is free of noise now is it?

No but its bearable at the moment because they change take off and landing directions to give us a break.

I would be interested in what the flight paths look like for this.

Either way as a resident we are all strangely supportive of Boris's plan.

Personally I would restrict it to domestic traffic so that they would open up the regional destinations - the sort that Embraer aircraft would fly. Why they have not done something before about this underused airport on Heathrow's door beats me.

Seems a bit of a ridiculous proposal when they could just build a 3rd runway at Heathrow itself. Thereby avoiding the need to build a train line on top of building a new runway and avoid making passengers endure a 15 minute transfer (which would probably mean up to 30 minute transfer when waiting for trains, etc).

A proposal that is justified on the basis that it lets politicians save face is in my view a flawed one.

Seems a bit of a ridiculous proposal when they could just build a 3rd runway at Heathrow itself. Thereby avoiding the need to build a train line on top of building a new runway and avoid making passengers endure a 15 minute transfer (which would probably mean up to 30 minute transfer when waiting for trains, etc).

A proposal that is justified on the basis that it lets politicians save face is in my view a flawed one.

but what about when they need to build the Fourth Runway???? then Northolt would have to be the answer as Boris Island will never happen (I love the idea but I need to remember this is Britain)

I would move all BA short haul, Finnair, Aer Lingus and Iberias to it and allow easy 'airside' transfers to T5 on the high speed rail link to allow people to get to the BA long haul network easily. With the slots freed up at T5 from the Iberia and BA short hauls leaving I would move American Airlines and Qantas in to allow for an easy 'OneWorld' style operation.

...err, how about keeping all of OneWorld "on site" (as it were) and moving some of the non-OW airlines out?

Connecting via LHR isn't brilliant at the moment, adding an extra 15 minute train ride (+ 15-20 mins waiting time) into the mix will only make it worse.

PS - re: "slots" being freed up at T5... isn't "slots" to do with runways, not terminals?

Personally I would restrict it to domestic traffic so that they would open up the regional destinations - the sort that Embraer aircraft would fly. Why they have not done something before about this underused airport on Heathrow's door beats me.

One issue is that MoD has been filling up EGWU with displaced units from places like Uxbridge. In the process there has been a lot of new-build to accommodate them. I suspec the net cost would entail some re-building of virtually brand new, purpose-built facilities.

As to airfield usage, there's a long-standing issue with taxiways (lack of) requiring backtracking the active from South Side. And the rw isn't very long for commercial use. And, of course, 07/25 creates an element of snarl-up with traffic patterns at LHR. All that combines to reduce potential traffic rates.

As I've said several times, a new rw parallel to both the M40 and, significantly, LHR's, offers a completely different picture. And, aside from a shift of noise to a different (less populous) axis, the new rw would be built on what is effectively a large swathe of waste land. Let Google Earth enlighten you to the prospects of EGWU's rw 27/09.

http://i319.photobucket.com/albums/mm468/atco5473/FlyerTalk/ScreenShot2012-04-09at173309.png

Seems a bit of a ridiculous proposal when they could just build a 3rd runway at Heathrow itself.

I only tend to follow this stuff from a distance, but where would LHR's third runway go? Is the idea to put it to the north, between the A4 and the M4?

I only tend to follow this stuff from a distance, but where would LHR's third runway go? Is the idea to put it to the north, between the A4 and the M4?

Here is a map (http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/media/pdf/g/1/heathrow_consultion_map.pdf) from opponents of BAA's original proposal.

We'll give this topic a quick spin on the BA board before dispatching it off to UK and Ireland.

Prospero
Moderator: BAEC forum

As I've said several times, a new rw parallel to both the M40 and, significantly, LHR's, offers a completely different picture. And, aside from a shift of noise to a different (less populous) axis, the new rw would be built on what is effectively a large swathe of waste land. Let Google Earth enlighten you to the prospects of EGWU's rw 27/09.

http://i319.photobucket.com/albums/mm468/atco5473/FlyerTalk/ScreenShot2012-04-09at173309.png

I too have long felt it's the obvious answer, though I suspect your 27/9 is a bit closer to 28/10!

FWIW, couldn't the A40 be put into a cutting / tunnel near the south western perimeter of Northolt so the runway either gets very close to, or even crosses the road?

The thing that's absolutely key here would be the speed and frequency of the train connection. Getting high speed, driverless, airside shuttles every 5 minutes would make this work. Better still, figure out how to mix landside and airside transfers on the same tracks.

Heaven help us is some politician somewhere figures out it could be part of Crossrail (or similar) and solve some other need with 30 minute landside services via who knows where.

RW 27.5? ;)

Not sure what the current state is on the Long Lane crossing over the A/M40. There was so much open tunnelling or elevated junctions since I left the area.

(I lived for at least 8 years at Uxbridge and Ickenham, and then nearly 5 years at RAF Northolt itself ... It was always changing! Who ever said "Join the RAF and see The World"?

Who ever said "Join the RAF and see The World"?

"Join the RAF and see Northolt" may or may not have been as enticing? :p

"Join the RAF and see Northolt" may or may not have been as enticing? :p
Nor would 8 years in Norfolk, or 5 in Linconshire :(
Singapore was nice, though. And so was Port Stanley, in a strange way ;)

Anywaaaaayyyy … I continue to say YES to EGWU and, as bernardd has noted, the essential remote shuttles to LHR. And some simple links to the various underground and surface rail stations that surround the airfield.

Nor would 8 years in Norfolk, or 5 in Linconshire :(
Singapore was nice, though. And so was Port Stanley, in a strange way ;)

Anywaaaaayyyy … I continue to say YES to EGWU and, as bernardd has noted, the essential remote shuttles to LHR. And some simple links to the various underground and surface rail stations that surround the airfield.

None of those places sound bad

I was realising yesterday flying back to ABZ on the BA Shuttle how beautiful our country is :)

Especially when I have been living in places such as Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Nigeria...........allthough Brazil was nice

Nor would 8 years in Norfolk, or 5 in Linconshire :(
Singapore was nice, though. And so was Port Stanley, in a strange way ;)

Anywaaaaayyyy … I continue to say YES to EGWU and, as bernardd has noted, the essential remote shuttles to LHR. And some simple links to the various underground and surface rail stations that surround the airfield.

Q: Is it actually necessary to have the full terminal infrastructure at EGWU as if it were an entirely separate airport?

... or could it just be "just" a remote runway w/ airside facilities? Do we need car parks, bus stops, car rental, hotels, check-in, security ... etc etc... instead would it be possible to focus on a really good (frequent & fast) connection to the "mother ship" down the road and have the whole of EGWU be "airside"?

Q: Is it actually necessary to have the full terminal infrastructure at EGWU as if it were an entirely separate airport?

... or could it just be "just" a remote runway w/ airside facilities? Do we need car parks, bus stops, car rental, hotels, check-in, security ... etc etc... instead would it be possible to focus on a really good (frequent & fast) connection to the "mother ship" down the road and have the whole of EGWU be "airside"?

I think pax infrastructure would be justified, if only to capitalise on the superb transport links at EGWU. No point in sending the pax to LHR to continue clogging it up.

Likewise aircraft will need fuel, and pax will need baggage handling, security and car parking. Again, why afflict an already fairly dysfunctional LHR with a collection of remote pax, when they could have been handled at EGWU?

Think LCY, if you will … get off the aircraft [from wherever], grab bags if needed, hop on moving walkway to adjacent underground/surface rail and go away! Or … hop on the elevated MAGLEV to LHR to connect to your long-haul flight. Or get a taxi/bus along the A40 into London [except at peak times!].

Q: Is it actually necessary to have the full terminal infrastructure at EGWU as if it were an entirely separate airport?

... or could it just be "just" a remote runway w/ airside facilities? Do we need car parks, bus stops, car rental, hotels, check-in, security ... etc etc... instead would it be possible to focus on a really good (frequent & fast) connection to the "mother ship" down the road and have the whole of EGWU be "airside"?

You bring up an interesting point in that LHR isn't one airside, and even with the redevelopment of T1/2, I assume East, T3, T4 and T5 are still all going to be separate. If it were opened into a single area, which included the "North" terminal, could you then enter security at any of the terminals for any flight? What would you do about unsavory passengers connecting from dodgy countries? Screen them wherever they arrive and allow them free roaming? How would you stop them leaking out through domestic arrivals and polluting the British populace?

The alternative is to have the existing terminals individually linked to "north" but that makes the shuttles less efficient and/or less frequent to each terminal, so the more I think about it, the less sure I am of how it's going to work in practice? Does it suppose a radical re-think of "main" LHR?

A valid issue, bernardd … I'm sure it could work with something akin to a large "connections", combined with rigid "conformance" ;)

However, first we have to determine who will fly into EGWU. Domestic? S/H European?

No, first we have to determine whether the construction is feasible, and get the idiots in Parliament to allow it to happen.

Or … hop on the elevated MAGLEV to LHR to connect to your long-haul flight. Or get a taxi/bus along the A40 into London [except at peak times!].

So you'd have appropriate Northolt<>LHR transport both for both landside AND airside pax? Or would there be no airside transit? What about checked bags connecting through?

Connecting through LHR-Northolt without airside transit or checked-through baggage wouldn't be very attractive, would it?

A valid issue, bernardd … I'm sure it could work with something akin to a large "connections", combined with rigid "conformance" ;)

However, first we have to determine who will fly into EGWU. Domestic? S/H European?

No, first we have to determine whether the construction is feasible, and get the idiots in Parliament to allow it to happen.

Is there a valid (ATC? logistical?) reason for thinking that all S/H or Domestic could/should go out to EGWU?

From a passengers point of view, putting all L/H flights together and all S/H & Domestic together, irrespective of airline alliances, may not be the best solution...

Imagine if T5 was all L/H - OW, Skyteam and *A - all together <gulp>. T1/2/3 was all S/H & Domestic. Would you like that? Would the airlines?

Think of the buses <sigh>

A valid issue, bernardd … I'm sure it could work with something akin to a large "connections", combined with rigid "conformance" ;)

IMO for this to work, particularly if domestic and flights from very friendly nations go to the "North" terminal, they need to adopt the US model where you can go straight from domestic to longhaul flight without wasting time in "connections" - adding that to the shuttle times would make this a joke/nightmare.


No, first we have to determine whether the construction is feasible, and get the idiots in Parliament to allow it to happen.

The construction is every bit as feasible as the plan for the 3rd runway or a 2nd runway at LGW - it's a political decision about how much you're going to invest in the shuttle, how many houses you're going to compulsorily purchase, how many communities you're going to disrupt in favour of air travellers etc. etc. In a sense it's the reverse of Boris Island - that's a massive technical challenge (check out sinkage at KIX for example), and there are certainly wildlife concerns, but there are far fewer neighbours to displace.

Looks feasible at first until you look at the bigger picture.

Another that'll be consigned to the filing cabinet and brought out every now and then. I think the 3rd runway is the best option until they sort out a realistic alternative.

I am more for the 3rd runway as well but this would not be terrible, if it could be realized.

Consider already that the T5->T3 run is 10 minutes and the T5->T4 run is often about 15.
With frequent enough train services (i.e. max every 10 minutes), a 15 minute ride is not too bad.

So you'd have appropriate Northolt<>LHR transport both for both landside AND airside pax? Or would there be no airside transit? What about checked bags connecting through?

Connecting through LHR-Northolt without airside transit or checked-through baggage wouldn't be very attractive, would it?
I have envisaged the WU-LHR transit being an exclusively airside exercise. Considerations of security being foremost in my mind, having seen what a dog's orphan can be created by mixing pax categories! I can't conceive a sensible way for pax turning up at EGWU on the bus to hop on the LHR shuttles - they can make their way to LHR landside, any way they choose.

Could the shuttles carry baggage containers for connecting checked bags? If designed so to do, that's possible. "Stand clear of the doors, this is a baggage shuttle. A Passenger shuttle will be along in 3 minutes".

I have envisaged the WU-LHR transit being an exclusively airside exercise. Considerations of security being foremost in my mind, having seen what a dog's orphan can be created by mixing pax categories! I can't conceive a sensible way for pax turning up at EGWU on the bus to hop on the LHR shuttles - they can make their way to LHR landside, any way they choose.

Could the shuttles carry baggage containers for connecting checked bags? If designed so to do, that's possible. "Stand clear of the doors, this is a baggage shuttle. A Passenger shuttle will be along in 3 minutes".

I think you're instinctively seeing a "shuttle" as looking like the T5a-T5b-T5c style, but it doesn't have to be that way. There are quite a number of options for mixing different types of vehicles / containers with different origins and destinations onto the same transport medium. One model you could then adopt is baggage and freight containers coming off aircraft at the north satellite could be sent directly to the correct baggage hall in the main area, for example BA containers would end up in T5 without being opened, and vice versa for outbound baggage.

I have envisaged the WU-LHR transit being an exclusively airside exercise. Considerations of security being foremost in my mind, having seen what a dog's orphan can be created by mixing pax categories! I can't conceive a sensible way for pax turning up at EGWU on the bus to hop on the LHR shuttles - they can make their way to LHR landside, any way they choose.

Could the shuttles carry baggage containers for connecting checked bags? If designed so to do, that's possible. "Stand clear of the doors, this is a baggage shuttle. A Passenger shuttle will be along in 3 minutes".

A single tunnel could quite easily cope with multiple different computer-guided vehicles all with different starting points and destinations. You could even have domestic and international parts of the same terminal having different stations but feeding into a single tunnel, separating out again at the other end. So, you could transit from domestic to international at LHR North, and then be delivered straight into departures at T2, T5 or T4 (when T1 & 3 eventually disappear).

Edit: Apologies to bernardd. I didn't see his post while typing mine. Great minds think alike!

Why not have a 3 section train, airside up front, landside in the middle and automated baggage container carrying wagons at the back. It would all need to be computer controller so the train stops in line with doors on the platform and a separation barrier for the two classes of passenger, but that isn't an issue these days. The computer would also load and unload baggage containers quickly depending on final destinations.

Put in a loop with stops at T1-5 or whatever will be there at time of completion. Make it two tracks, or maybe more, running in different directions and you can replace out the terminal transfer buses for existing buses. Add in a shortcut loop so some trains can bypass northholt for more capacity between T1-5 and it would be a great improvement.

Since free transfer between terminals is now possible airside you would need to match passengers to a photo for domestic departures, but that is doable. Those arriving and transfering to a domestic will need immigration checks but that isn't an issue. Just have them go through immigration in their arrival terminal and then have a door on the far side which leads back airside. At immigration they can be enrolled into an iris/epassport type system to allow access back airside and also access to the domestic flight.

Move all the domestics to a small subset of terminals and you could create a dedicated security zone with immigration checks from airside for transfers and security from landside. With the quick train transfer this shouldn't be an issue and domestic-domestic transfers between terminals domestic areas can be done landside.

Instead of train tunnels you could extend the T5 pod idea. Make the pods a little bigger, put in a bi-directional ring road with maybe more than one lane. It doesn't need to be in a tunnel, it could go round the ends of the runways and use elevated sections over taxi ways! (Or tunnels) Add in some baggage pods and away you go.

Personally I would restrict it to domestic traffic so that they would open up the regional destinations - the sort that Embraer aircraft would fly. Why they have not done something before about this underused airport on Heathrow's door beats me.

I've said before that they should try this:

Fine just don't build it there!

I'm actually more interested in the idea of using NHT for freeing up space at LHR by taking Short Haul flights. There just needs to be a highspeed link between NHT and LHR for connections which shouldn't be that hard to achieve. There is an existing rail line that runs past the airfield that could be used as well as the tube, and a major road runs next to it. yes there will be a few problems but I'm sure they're possible to deal with

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/18271255-post69.html

It makes more sense in the short term for freeing up some space at LHR.

Seems a bit of a ridiculous proposal when they could just build a 3rd runway at Heathrow itself. Thereby avoiding the need to build a train line on top of building a new runway and avoid making passengers endure a 15 minute transfer (which would probably mean up to 30 minute transfer when waiting for trains, etc).

A proposal that is justified on the basis that it lets politicians save face is in my view a flawed one.

Well what about using the existing rail line that runs past the airfield that could be used as well as the tube line.

The other key thing with this proposal is that it allows all political parties who are opposed to new runways in the south east (and have commitments in their manifestos) the opportunity to back this, without breaking their commitments to voters. This is simply the re-alignment of an existing runway, rather than the bulldozing of homes, and the creation of a new runway.

The other key thing with this proposal is that it allows all political parties who are opposed to new runways in the south east (and have commitments in their manifestos) the opportunity to back this, without breaking their commitments to voters. This is simply the re-alignment of an existing runway, rather than the bulldozing of homes, and the creation of a new runway.

There would still be bulldozing of homes to realign the runway at Northolt, but probably far fewer than with the 3rd runway.

Sorry but I think that the problem is too immediate - the runway at Northolt exists and could go into business for STOL traffic immediately. If a train is too expensive, some such solution such as they have at Business Parking at T5 with those pods might be quicker and cheaper for part of the route as far as a connection with the train tunnel into Heathrow.

Where in Norfolk were you T8191, my Warrior at Rest?

The other key thing with this proposal is that it allows all political parties who are opposed to new runways in the south east (and have commitments in their manifestos) the opportunity to back this, without breaking their commitments to voters. This is simply the re-alignment of an existing runway, rather than the bulldozing of homes, and the creation of a new runway.

I've been advocating the use of the former RAF Wisley as a much better alternative to Northolt for about the last 10 years. There's a perfectly aligned 2,500m runway sitting there, no houses to knock down, nothing under the flight path for a couple of miles each way (other than the RHS gardens), enough distance from LHR and LGW to manage ATC issues, and best of all it's right on the proposed route for a Heathrow-Gatwick shuttle train.

Per some other postings, you'd then have both airside and landside trains in service, effectively combining all three airports into one, with 10-25 min connection times depending on how crazy you want to get for high speed trains in long tunnels.

It's also right off the M25 and A3, and the rail link would connect it to Waterloo, Channel Tunnel, West Country and so on. I put together a slidepack which I've kept quite up to date over the years. Maybe FTers can militate for such an option...

Click here to see the full presentation! (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B58UO0SZuk8xQ1NUWFdvWVRWcGs)

Sorry but I think that the problem is too immediate

Which is why someone should have been planning this 10 years ago, not now.

Which is why someone should have been planning this 10 years ago, not now.

Exactly. Every time a difficult decision about a new runway has been required it's been overtaken by the next election and conveniently buried. Meantime, they built a terminal where the second LGW runway should have been and made things even worse. And this is not to mention Heathrow East (not open for the Olympics), Crossrail (not open for the Olympics), and rail connections to Clapham / Gatwick or Watford / the channel tunnel.

In short, Britain doesn't have joined up thinking about infrastructure planning; it's all about small scale financial justifications for individual projects rather than strategy and forward planning.

I've been advocating the use of the former RAF Wisley as a much better alternative to Northolt for about the last 10 years.

Hah, hah, ho, ho, now I've picked myself off the floor and dried the tears from my eyes I must admit I'm rather looking forward to the massed racks of the "Ladies of Surrey" preparing to do battle for their Green Belt and the value of their mansions. Boy oh boy will the pearls be flying! Have you any idea what you're suggesting? It doesn't matter how logical it might seem; there's basically no way on earth ANY UK politician is going to risk re-election for that site.

Thanks to you all for padding my thoughts! I don't disagree with anything you've said - I just didn't bother to write a full proposal only to have it shot down in flames!! :D

FenLandK … not a lot of bulldozing needed, and what there is would be fairly low-value property. Not being snobbish, just a statement of fact.

bernardd … agree completely on the shuttle design. It would need something half-way between HEX and the T5 toy train, with baggage capabilities. And elwe highlights an additional benefit of an internal rail system, albeit adding complexity and £££.

asquithventure … interesting, and a new one on me! I shall read that presentation in a minute. However, first thoughts are new noise impact on Leatherhead and Woking, and the fact that the section of the M25 round there is possible the worst for congestion at peak times.

…………..

PUCCI … RAF Watton [Eastern Radar], roughly half way between Thetford and Norwich. Long since closed, and partly bulldozed. There for 4+ years in the early 70s, another 2+ in the late 70s ... and nearly another 2+ in the late 80s until that posting plot was over-ruled.

PUCCI … . Long since closed, and partly bulldozed. .

Darling sounds like the sex life of some of our Cabin Crew!

I've been advocating the use of the former RAF Wisley as a much better alternative to Northolt for about the last 10 years. There's a perfectly aligned 2,500m runway sitting there, no houses to knock down, nothing under the flight path for a couple of miles each way (other than the RHS gardens), enough distance from LHR and LGW to manage ATC issues, and best of all it's right on the proposed route for a Heathrow-Gatwick shuttle train.

Per some other postings, you'd then have both airside and landside trains in service, effectively combining all three airports into one, with 10-25 min connection times depending on how crazy you want to get for high speed trains in long tunnels.

It's also right off the M25 and A3, and the rail link would connect it to Waterloo, Channel Tunnel, West Country and so on. I put together a slidepack which I've kept quite up to date over the years. Maybe FTers can militate for such an option...

Click here to see the full presentation! (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B58UO0SZuk8xQ1NUWFdvWVRWcGs)

No

That would never happen

That is prime Tory country, the Tory voting Housewife and well healed types would be fuming in their mansions at such a move and in no time a Conservative Government would burn all evidence of ever having thought of it. Anyway a storage facility is being built on the land of RAF Wisely.

Could happen were Labour to win the next election however Red Ed opposes airport expansion as he is a greeny half wit like the others

Not to mention immediate drop in shares at The Wisley.....:D

If the plan is adopted I see Northolt becoming a LCY type airport with a preponderance of propeller & commuter aircraft for purely the "domestic" market (ie UK & Ireland) for flights that currently use LHR. By doing so you remove the problem of Johnny Foreigner illegally gaining access to the UK via Northolt and open up Heathrow slots for longer haul travel. It would also mean you could use coaches to transfer between the "terminals" until the funds are found for the train link (yes that last bit was sarcasm).

As the aircraft would be smaller than the ones currently flying to LHR you'd have to have more flights per day which would make flying more competitive than train and car for travel within the British Isles and demolish the case for HS2 at a stroke

So politically it has a lot going for it.

that the section of the M25 round there is possible the worst for congestion at peak times.


But, if EGWU was not just an airside development you'd have the congestion on the A40 at peak hours to contend with. And, probably through the day too if it wasn't upgraded. As for public transport links you have Ruislip Gardens tube at one end and Hillingdon tube (a lengthy route to central London) at the other and, er, that's it.

That said, if it's the only plan that's politically viable then it's do-able. Just take the pot that's been allocated for HS2 and... oh, I suppose that's another can of worms, so I'll leave it there. :)

How many "domestic" flights (UK & Ireland) does LHR handle each day.

But, if EGWU was not just an airside development you'd have the congestion on the A40 at peak hours to contend with. And, probably through the day too if it wasn't upgraded. As for public transport links you have Ruislip Gardens tube at one end and Hillingdon tube (a lengthy route to central London) at the other and, er, that's it.

That said, if it's the only plan that's politically viable then it's do-able. Just take the pot that's been allocated for HS2 and... oh, I suppose that's another can of worms, so I'll leave it there. :)

All agreed. Glad I'm not the Minister responsible, and instead can just pontificate here :D

However, that's why these things take so bludgy long to happen, ignoring the potential saga of the preservation of the only known habitat of the lesser crested bog rat.

Anyway, alanR raises the interesting question of who gets to use FT's new airport, and how and when, and whether such utilisation is economically viable and actually generates benefit for LHR's congestion.

I'd be all for it....it for long haul flights, it'd shorten the distance traveled by 10-15 miles. :)

Seems the main reason given for not looking at Wisley is the presence of local Tory NIMBYs. I had a very close look at exactly where the big mansions are in the area, and fortuitously none of them are under the flight paths, which have to be kept fairly narrow (not the usual bow-tie effect) to ensure compatibility with LHR/LGW.

Additionally, the thinking is to have an LCY-esque STOL requirement, which in combination with the straight approach, massively minimises ground noise. Woking and Leatherhead are several miles away and would hardly be impacted.

The smart-alecs re Tory grandees might like to note that the owner of the site is one David Mellor...

Additionally, the thinking is to have an LCY-esque STOL requirement, which in combination with the straight approach, massively minimises ground noise. Woking and Leatherhead are several miles away and would hardly be impacted.

Doesn't that rather limit its usability? I thought the idea was to reduce the load on LHR, not to require airlines to start buying STOL-able aircraft. Or are you implying a steeper approach with existing airframes?

Doesn't that rather limit its usability? I thought the idea was to reduce the load on LHR, not to require airlines to start buying STOL-able aircraft. Or are you implying a steeper approach with existing airframes?
The plan for the 3rd runway at LHR was for a shorter runway which wouldn't be able to handle the full range of aircraft. The Northolt proposal includes a runway long enough to handle B737s & A320s so it won't require *special* STOL aircraft.

It's certainly a more viable proposal than any of the Boris Island variants and it has the edge on the 3rd runway at LHR proposals if only because it means the government wouldn't have to do yet another (35 and counting) U-Turn.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9384108/Tories-call-for-third-and-fourth-runway-at-Heathrow.html

A group of 39 Tory MPs have called for a 3rd AND 4th runway to be built at LHR. One to the south west of the airport and another to the north.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9384108/Tories-call-for-third-and-fourth-runway-at-Heathrow.html

A group of 39 Tory MPs have called for a 3rd AND 4th runway to be built at LHR. One to the south west of the airport and another to the north.

A more likely scenario than the pie in the sky Northolt scheme.

Recently, BA have been running an ad where their planes taxi through the streets of London, pulling directly up to the olympic stadium and various local landmarks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6VzhDE1Wso

It's a cool ad, but also fairly amusing as it reveals a bit about how BA, BAA, and people like these 39 Tory MPs perceive/idealise London: pretty much a giant airport.

So I propose that - along with the completely sensible 3rd and 4th runway - why not run an actual taxiway, parallel to the M4, into a new "Terminal 6" in central London? Sure, we may have to demolish a few homes/neighbourhoods along the way, but there'd be no more need to bother with traffic and trains to get to your destination. Everything west of Chiswick is a bit crap anyway. The convenience would be fantastic! And there'd be no doubt in anyone's minds that London is a true global aviation hub.

A more likely scenario than the pie in the sky Northolt scheme.

Which is in turn more likely than Boris Island. ;)

Doesn't that rather limit its usability? I thought the idea was to reduce the load on LHR, not to require airlines to start buying STOL-able aircraft. Or are you implying a steeper approach with existing airframes?

The latter, my bad for short-handing it.

According to the plans for the "HeathWick" rail line, which crosses Wisley anyway, transfer times would be as little as 10-15 mins from LHR and 15-20 mins from LGW. This is comparable to a terminal change, if done airside.

The thinking is that most s/h and m/h O&D traffic could be moved out of LHR and LGW into Wisley, where an 8,000ft runway can handle pretty much anything except serious widebodies anyway.

The latter, my bad for short-handing it.

According to the plans for the "HeathWick" rail line, which crosses Wisley anyway, transfer times would be as little as 10-15 mins from LHR and 15-20 mins from LGW. This is comparable to a terminal change, if done airside.

The thinking is that most s/h and m/h O&D traffic could be moved out of LHR and LGW into Wisley, where an 8,000ft runway can handle pretty much anything except serious widebodies anyway.

You are forgetting that Wisley is an extremely well heeled tory area. No tory in their right mind would support such a plan.

Was thinking today that maybe all the delays in announcing T5D and T5E could because both T5E and T5D will be at NHT? (just joking)

Anyhow worked out today that there are over 74 flights a day from LHR to airports in the UK if you add the Irish Republic to that list it will probably reach 100. If you then add the Netherlands, Belgium, Paris etc it would exceed 150.

Just think 150 take off slots freed up could be a huge lift off LHR's shoulders and could be used for all sorts of new flights to the emerging markets.

THey dont need this at all. All that is needed is for BA to be told to use some slots at LGW for the LH routes.

THey dont need this at all. All that is needed is for BA to be told to use some slots at LGW for the LH routes.

Bad for transfer traffic....and BA at LGW has been tried and failed excluding sh European and leisure routes

Was thinking today that maybe all the delays in announcing T5D and T5E could because both T5E and T5D will be at NHT? (just joking)

Anyhow worked out today that there are over 74 flights a day from LHR to airports in the UK if you add the Irish Republic to that list it will probably reach 100. If you then add the Netherlands, Belgium, Paris etc it would exceed 150.

Just think 150 take off slots freed up could be a huge lift off LHR's shoulders and could be used for all sorts of new flights to the emerging markets.
It could. But then you have all your domestic passengers arriving in Northolt. There are no good transport links to the rest of London. It will be a horrific transfer to LHR for onward connections. What on earth would the point be of flying to Northolt if you were a domestic passenger? It would be a really good way of pushing all the regional thru traffic onto other airlines and the O&D traffic to LGW, STN and LTN. Perhaps that's the point - keep LHR for Londoners? But even they need to travel domestically sometimes :(

Perhaps that's the point - keep LHR for Londoners? But even they need to travel domestically sometimes :(

Don't worry - am sure all the important ones have people to do that for them :p

It could. But then you have all your domestic passengers arriving in Northolt. There are no good transport links to the rest of London. It will be a horrific transfer to LHR for onward connections. What on earth would the point be of flying to Northolt if you were a domestic passenger? It would be a really good way of pushing all the regional thru traffic onto other airlines and the O&D traffic to LGW, STN and LTN. Perhaps that's the point - keep LHR for Londoners? But even they need to travel domestically sometimes :(

If you had read the article at the beggining of the thread the plan for NHT includes a super fast airside train connecting NHT to LHR. One could easily fly into NHT on their domestic flight and catch an airside transit train to LHR for international connections.

Or you could ride the flying pigs too!

(Sorry, I'm always cynical about schemes being dependent upon 'super fast trains' since at some point, the super fast trains always seem to be judged really unnecessary and cut to save money... )

Or you could ride the flying pigs too!

(Sorry, I'm always cynical about schemes being dependent upon 'super fast trains' since at some point, the super fast trains always seem to be judged really unnecessary and cut to save money... )

Absolutely correct - however, I have to say that the Northolt idea seems to be more workable than any other I've heard.

Of course, it would all be easier if it were organised sensibly. For example, BA to take Terminals 1 (if it's ever rebuilt), 2 and 3. Star Alliance takes T5, SkyTeam stay in T4 and non-aligned all move to Northolt. That would then minimise the number of transfers needed. But logic, Heathrow and Government policy are not happy bedfellows.

Absolutely correct - however, I have to say that the Northolt idea seems to be more workable than any other I've heard.

Of course, it would all be easier if it were organised sensibly. For example, BA to take Terminals 1 (if it's ever rebuilt), 2 and 3. Star Alliance takes T5, SkyTeam stay in T4 and non-aligned all move to Northolt. That would then minimise the number of transfers needed. But logic, Heathrow and Government policy are not happy bedfellows.

Have a hard time seeing BA give up T5...even though it can be a very busy place!!

Bad for transfer traffic....and BA at LGW has been tried and failed excluding sh European and leisure routes

I think BA have given up on launching many more routes. They seem happy with the situation at the moment.