maybe but wouldnt that just complicate London's airport system even more?

Maybe. But in the event of no R3 or new mega-hub we may need to do something to relieve the extreme pressures on LHR.

It wouldn't be ideal. But it is an option worth considering, otherwise the UK economy will suffer.

Good point

I thought that maybe we could set up a NY style dual hub approach

where by Virgin moves everything to LGW and sets up a CO/EWR style hub there, and BAW and all the other big players AAL, UAL etc stay at LHR similar to JFK

It used to work like this in the 80s with LGW being BCAL territory and LHR being BA territory

I thought SRBeardy was keener on LHR than LGW especially with his opposition to IAG buying BMI and their many slots at LHR.

And of course, Stansted which really began to develop in the 1980s.

Some fascinating stuff in this document, and indeed throughout this thread.

I've made this point before in similar threads, but whilst clearly Heathrow is geographically unsuited for purpose, it does to me represent the only viable option for development in the short term - which is essential for us to be seen to be on the ball. I would support a future Thames Hub - but it's so far off we need to think two-stage (as they did in Dubai)

But back to the original document.....we've been talking about capacities for sooooooo long now, I really don't care what happens to be honest, as long as SOMETHING happens (JFDI). And that something should not be a new government cancelling what the last one put in place, then producing their own review....and round and round we go.

Northolt sounds like a sensible stopgap (nothing more, as there is only one runway and presumably no space to build a second?) and would presumably be less disruptive to achieve than R3. It would need a fast connection to LHR, presumably along the lines of an extension to the HEX, and also a fast connection to Central London so as not to make it too unattractive compared to LHR.

With the major airlines having arranged themselves into alliances, does anyone have any statistics as to the number of connecting flights made with connections across different alliances? In other words, if (say) all Star Alliance flights were moved to Northolt, it may be that the number of pax needing to transfer from one airport to the other would not in fact be that significant.

That wouldn't work because the runway at Northolt (or even a realigned and lengthened runway) would be nowhere near long enough for flights to the USA, Canada and Far East. The Northolt proposition would be for UK domestics and European short-haul only.

I think we all know that this is the real way forward;

http://www.skyport-heathrow.co.uk/2012/01/city-airports-in-the-clouds--.html

:p

The heart of the problem is that British Airways and Virgin, the only main UK airlines, are no longer entrepreneurial as they should be to solve this problem.

Over the past ten years BA has seen more competition on its European routes from Easyjet. To solve this problem they have retrenched into on hub only.

Its easy to understand why with fuel costs so high and govts seem to enjoy to pick on aviation to have more tax and increase revenue to the govts.

I am worried that Mr Goldsmith will stop this debate going forward much more.

But we need them to stop complaining and do something about it, think more long term that short term.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...ost-trade.html

Heathrow is not operating at 99% capacity. Heathrow's runway capacity could be increased overnight with the existing physical infrastructure by simply authorising "mixed-mode" operations throughout the day on both runways.

Operating at 99% capacity means that a schedule is only sustainable in perfect conditions hence the total implosion that happens when a single snowflake falls or a little mist surrounds West London.

Expanding capacity as suggested would be a good way to deal with disruptions rather than to increase an overly optimistic schedule.

The disturbance that would be caused to a substantial number of London residents stretching from Docklands (LHR traffic noise used to disturb me far more in the Canary Wharf area than LCY traffic) to Reading from constant mixed mode operations would be completely unacceptable IMHO.

I think if I was BAA I'd continue to buy houses in Sipson when they come up for sale and rent them on short to medium lets so that you are more ready to go, if the go ahead is given and you're making a return on them in the meantime.

Well "mixed-mode" operations are allowed but only during periods of disruption such as caused by bad weather etc. This was given the go ahead because they cancelled the third runway and can't be fun for everyone.

Very easy to say, but would you want to be the Air Traffic Controller that has to accept the responsibility for thousands of lives at a time? The job itself, despite the help from technology, is pretty stressful as it is without adding to the burden.

The Ground controllers would have a nightmare too, with taxiways being used for mixed mode. It would be extremely hard for them to keep up to speed with who's lining up for take-off, who's waiting to go to a stand and who is under tow. The single mode operation means a neat, orderly, methodical way of working - mixed mode calls for much greater powers of concentration and would make handing over at the end of a shift almost an impossible task.

Mixed mode runways work well at less crowded airports. Heathrow, thanks to successive short-sighted politicians and the "NIMBY" brigade, is probably the most congested airport in the world.