Airport expansions

[camflyer]

Whats your feeling on the proposed Gatwick expansion.

Personally i think for the safety reasons they should build a new runway and bin off this idea of using the pre existing northern runway.

On paper this is all well and good, to an extent.

But all it takes is for one aircraft on one runway to hit an aircraft using the other runway and the CAA would likely shut this plan down for aviation safety reasons.

Its been long known that this northern runway never saw regular use, unless the other one was closed for maintenance / resufacing works due to security concerns due to the proximity of these runways to each other.

My question is this, what has changed?

They aren't just going to use the northern runway. They are going to move it 12 metres further away from the other runway so that it is compliant with safety standards though I think this will only allow simultaneous use by narrow bodies, it still won't be enough of a separation for two wide bodies but since most of LGW's flight are short haul then this won't be a problem.

Northern Runway Plans | London Gatwick Airport

Learn more about our plans bring our existing Northern Runway come into routine alongside our Main Runway.

www.gatwickairport.com

 

[AlastairFraser]

They aren't just going to use the northern runway. They are going to move it 12 metres further away from the other runway so that it is compliant with safety standards though I think this will only allow simultaneous use by narrow bodies, it still won't be enough of a separation for two wide bodies but since most of LGW's flight are short haul then this won't be a problem.

Northern Runway Plans | London Gatwick Airport

Learn more about our plans bring our existing Northern Runway come into routine alongside our Main Runway.

www.gatwickairport.com

Precisely, the bulk of Gatwick traffic is low cost airlines using A319/A320s to fly European/North African routes.
So the dual runway system will safely and substantially increase capacity at a reasonable cost per new takeoff/landing slot

 

[Cross City]

Heathrow is attractive because of the connection options is provides.

Heathrow's main advantage IMO is it's location. 30 Minutes to central London. 1.5-2 hours to the West Midlands (3m people) 1.5-2 hrs to Bristol (0.8m), and convenient for all of the Home Counties.

Stansted on the other hand is in the arse-end of nowhere.

This is also why any proposals for a new London Airport anywhere east of the city won't work (Estuary, Sheppey, Maplin etc). Heathrow is literally perfectly located for not only the South East but also almost all of England south of Wolverhampton and east of the Severn Crossings.

If it was up to me a new airport would be located smack bang where HS2 crosses East West Rail

 

[daodao]

Heathrow's main advantage IMO is it's location. 30 Minutes to central London. 1.5-2 hours to the West Midlands (3m people) 1.5-2 hrs to Bristol (0.8m), and convenient for all of the Home Counties.

Stansted on the other hand is in the arse-end of nowhere.

This is also why any proposals for a new London Airport anywhere east of the city won't work (Estuary, Sheppey, Maplin etc). Heathrow is literally perfectly located for not only the South East but also almost all of England south of Wolverhampton and east of the Severn Crossings.

If it was up to me a new airport would be located smack bang where HS2 crosses East West Rail

In 1971, the Roskill Commission recommended Cublington, not that far from where the former GCR and Varsity lines crossed, as the site for a new London airport. The government rejected the proposal on environmental grounds. It would have been well placed to serve a large part of southern Britain.

 

[camflyer]

Heathrow's main advantage IMO is it's location. 30 Minutes to central London. 1.5-2 hours to the West Midlands (3m people) 1.5-2 hrs to Bristol (0.8m), and convenient for all of the Home Counties.

Stansted on the other hand is in the arse-end of nowhere.

This is also why any proposals for a new London Airport anywhere east of the city won't work (Estuary, Sheppey, Maplin etc). Heathrow is literally perfectly located for not only the South East but also almost all of England south of Wolverhampton and east of the Severn Crossings.

If it was up to me a new airport would be located smack bang where HS2 crosses East West Rail

If HS2 is upsetting the good folk of the Shires just imagine what a new airport would do to them.

Clearly if we were starting from scratch and had access to a time machine then the UK's main airport wouldn't be at Heathrow (perhaps it should have been built as part of the Milton Keynes masterplan in the 1960s with good rail and road links to London, Brum, Oxford and Cambridge) but we are where we are and moving it would be astronomically expensive.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You realise connecting passengers are also a vital component because it allows airlines like BA to offer services to many, many destinations which would not otherwise be cost effective to run?

The idea that these flights wouldn’t run without connecting passengers is the reddest of red herrings:

The whole point of hidden city ticketing is to fill up excess capacity.

Airlines price dump their excess seats through A-Heathrow-Z tickets. They do this so that there isn’t an impact on the fares they can charge from Heathrow to A or from Heathrow to Z. It’s nothing but a way of dumping excess capacity.

Commercially it makes perfect sense. Keep the yield up at your hub and price dump your excess capacity against your competitors’ hubs. The underlying issue is that there is the excess capacity requiring price dumping.

I don’t see how these tickets sustain anything.

 

[Magdalia]

If HS2 is upsetting the good folk of the Shires just imagine what a new airport would do to them.

The good folk of the shires were upset when Roskill recommended Cublington in 1971. That's why it didn't happen.

Clearly if we were starting from scratch and had access to a time machine then the UK's main airport wouldn't be at Heathrow (perhaps it should have been built as part of the Milton Keynes masterplan in the 1960s with good rail and road links to London, Brum,

That's what Cublington would have done in the 1970s. Though Oxford and Cambridge weren't important then.

 

[BrianW]

The good folk of the shires were upset when Roskill recommended Cublington in 1971. That's why it didn't happen.


That's what Cublington would have done in the 1970s. Though Oxford and Cambridge weren't important then.

I seem to recall that Oxford and Cambridge have always been important, including self-important, and in Whitehall and Westminster

 

[camflyer]

I seem to recall that Oxford and Cambridge have always been important, including self-important, and in Whitehall and Westminster

According to the political documentary Yes Minister, the M40 was built before the M11 as more senior politicians and civil servants sent to Oxford rather than the Other Place.

 

[Dstock7080]

Arora Group bid rejected by Government:

Heathrow Airport's £33bn third runway plan chosen by government

Construction involves re-routing the M25 motorway and the demolition of nearby villages.

news.sky.com

“Heathrow's £33bn plan for a third runway has been chosen as the plan to expand the airport, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander has announced.
It means the competing plans for a shorter runway, as proposed by hotel tycoon Surinder Arora, has been rejected.”

 

[Snow1964]

Not sure how serious the Heathrow expansion is, or this is just bluster and kicking can down road, if they are suggesting another 3-4 years dithering over making a decision on planning.

• review will allow a planning decision by 2029 and London airspace to be redrawn to enable quicker, quieter, and greener flights to take off from a new runway by 2035
• new runway will be a boost for connectivity, supporting national economic growth, improving passenger experience and delivering the Plan for Change, after passenger numbers hit record levels at Heathrow this summer

Heathrow Airport Limited’s third runway proposal will be basis for expansion

Decisive action on third runway to support trade, tourism and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

www.gov.uk

Bit cheeky calling it decisive action, if might not be agreed for 3-4 years

 

[AeM]

Regarding rail connectivity, the wording of the Proposal Summary reads: "Heathrow is exploring the option of promoting a new rail scheme that combines the objectives of a Western Rail Link to Heathrow and Southern Rail Access to Heathrow. A Western link would unlock access from the West of England and South Wales, while Southern Rail Access would facilitate rail connectivity from South London and the surrounding counties."

We'd all love to see this happen, but this is probably where hard pressed public money will need to be found.....!

 

[camflyer]

Not sure how serious the Heathrow expansion is, or this is just bluster and kicking can down road, if they are suggesting another 3-4 years dithering over making a decision on planning.

Heathrow Airport Limited’s third runway proposal will be basis for expansion

Decisive action on third runway to support trade, tourism and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

www.gov.uk

Bit cheeky calling it decisive action, if might not be agreed for 3-4 years

A positive step but we've been here before. It was approved by Parliament in 2018 and cleared Supreme Court challenges in 2020... and then the pandemic hit.

 

[Metrider]

Regarding rail connectivity, the wording of the Proposal Summary reads: "Heathrow is exploring the option of promoting a new rail scheme that combines the objectives of a Western Rail Link to Heathrow and Southern Rail Access to Heathrow. A Western link would unlock access from the West of England and South Wales, while Southern Rail Access would facilitate rail connectivity from South London and the surrounding counties."

We'd all love to see this happen, but this is probably where hard pressed public money will need to be found.....!

Regarding the Western Rail Link - am I missing something, or could GWR trains from Cardiff/Bristol just make a stop at Hayes & Harlington on their way into London? That station already has the platforms set up, and while you'd have to change trains to get to the airport, it would at least be a "cross platform" change to catch an Elizabeth Line train going the other way. Then it's just 8 minutes to T2&3.

Seems like a simple way to "unlock access from the West of England and South Wales", without really needing to do much?

 

[ABB125]

Regarding the Western Rail Link - am I missing something, or could GWR trains from Cardiff/Bristol just make a stop at Hayes & Harlington on their way into London? That station already has the platforms set up, and while you'd have to change trains to get to the airport, it would at least be a "cross platform" change to catch an Elizabeth Line train going the other way. Then it's just 8 minutes to T2&3.

Seems like a simple way to "unlock access from the West of England and South Wales", without really needing to do much?

Any additional calls will be Old Oak Common, which mostly serves the same purpose and also connects with HS2 (not that that's much of a benefit given its truncated form...)

 

[weeklycommuter]

According to the following news report from the BBC the total cost of the chosen third runway project is £49 billion. However a final decision on whether to build the third runway is still years away.

Heathrow's plan for longer third runway chosen by government

Under the selected plan, the runway would be up to 3.5km long and require a new road tunnel under the airport.

www.bbc.co.uk

Heathrow's plan for longer third runway chosen by government
Katy Austin, Transport correspondent , Nick Edser and Harry Low, reporters
Published 25 November 2025

Heathrow Airport's plan for a third runway, which involves moving the M25 motorway, has been chosen by the government.
Two plans had been under consideration - one from the airport itself, and another from Arora Group, led by hotel tycoon Surinder Arora.
Heathrow had proposed a new runway which would be up to 3.5km (2.2 miles) long and require a new road tunnel under the airport. The rival bid from Arora Group would have involved a shorter runway at a lower cost, and did not require altering the M25.
A final decision on whether a third runway will get the green light is still years away.
Last month, the government asked for further information to help choose between the Heathrow and Arora schemes.
The Department for Transport said Heathrow's own proposal offered the most deliverable option, and the "greatest likelihood" of getting a decision on planning approval within this parliament.

Heathrow had set out its plans for expansion in the summer. The whole project, which is expected to cost £49bn, includes:

• the new runway, which Heathrow says will increase capacity to 756,000 flights and 150 million passengers a year. It currently serves about 84 million
• a new terminal called T5X, expanding Terminal 2 and three new satellite terminals. It would close Terminal 3
• enhancement of local rail connections and improvements to Heathrow's bus and coach stations
• diversion of the M25, which would involve a new road tunnel under the airport, and widening the motorway between junctions 14-15

The Arora Group said it accepted the government's choice, adding it welcomed the decision to leave the option open for other firms to bid for the work.

 

[nwales58]

According to the political documentary Yes Minister, the M40 was built before the M11 as more senior politicians and civil servants sent to Oxford rather than the Other Place.

Good joke, but there was more to it than that. M40 was the 60s equivalent of HS2, London-Birmingham corridor capacity (Birmingham having more factories than Kings Lynn). Opening as far as Oxford with only the Otmoor problem is amazing success by current norms.

Cublington was the Roskill recommendation from that era (similarly beneficial to Oxford if anyone chooses to look at it that way). Had it been built we would now have a CDG-sized or larger set of runways and probably an even greater share of the transatlantic hub traffic, though less profitable than capacity-constrained LHR. By contrast with the M40, objectors effectively killed it (Maplin being a convenient alternative which was doomed to fail).

Not sure how serious the Heathrow expansion is, or this is just bluster and kicking can down road, if they are suggesting another 3-4 years dithering over making a decision on planning.

Planning decision by 2029 sounds about right to me if work on the planning application(s) starts now. So no dithering yet.

Although Heathrow will have done some work I'd guess at least 12-18 months before they are ready to submit the planning application. A planning inquiry is inevitable and lawyers need a year or two to maximise their income from objectors great and small. All in the interests of fairness.

Of course the most serious and richest objector, BA, could still try to scupper it by insisting they won't pay any increase in charges and pretending they'll move half their toys somewhere else.

 

[Olivine]

No idea why the Arora plan got so much pointless publicity. The man’s a charlatan.

 

[camflyer]

Of course the most serious and richest objector, BA, could still try to scupper it by insisting they won't pay any increase in charges and pretending they'll move half their toys somewhere else.

Indeed. BA do quite well out of a slot-limited Heathrow which limits competition. They don't want more airlines flying on their most profitable routes.

Their Waterside HQ would also have to be relocated.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Not sure how serious the Heathrow expansion is, or this is just bluster and kicking can down road, if they are suggesting another 3-4 years dithering over making a decision on planning.

I assume just bluster and kicking can down road as the Government does not want to admit that it will never happen. The current estimate of £49 billion will continue to increase. Nobody is going to spend that sort of money just to build one airport runway.

 

[ABB125]

For context, the first phase of the new Istanbul airport opened in 2019. $12 billion seems to be the cost floating around the internet, which I believe includes a very large terminal building and 3 runways. Currently the airport handles around 80 million passengers annually, second in Europe only to Heathrow at around 84 million.
The final estimated cost for the completed site is slightly harder to come by, but seems to be around €26 billion.

Of course, construction in the UK isn't really comparable to Turkey. Not least due to the official construction death toll for Istanbul airport being 55 (according to a 2019 news report) and unofficially a lot higher.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

No idea why the Arora plan got so much pointless publicity. The man’s a charlatan.

Are any of his hotels being flattened by the official scheme, by any chance?

 

[Olivine]

Are any of his hotels being flattened by the official scheme, by any chance?

Not sure if he minds either way!

 

[nwales58]

Long, but see the end, 2029 is probably 2033 or later.

Flattened hotels is a remarkable aspect of the plan, in that it is not mentioned at all in the latest 60 page glossy as far as I can see. Taking out so much hotel capacity without a replacement zone in the plan could result in anything from massive competition for very scarce sites nearby up to lack of capacity, very high rates and mega profits for those left standing (ones to the east of the M4 spur). Not clear whether the Sofitel survives sandwiched between T5 and T5X or not.

Parking, by contrast, is mentioned although the vague Northern+Southern Parkway and some 'dedicated transport system' without detail of sites, alignments and so on suggests the surface access planning is still overall concepts (expanding the CTA bus station, new southern road tunnel, increasing rail capacity somehow).

To be clear, surface access will require another increase in the share of public transport, with obvious difficulties, worsened by the shift to terminating from transit passengers.

If there is that lack of detail, Heathrow are still a long way from the planning/DCO application.

Edit: there are multiple spanners in the works. I had assumed this would go ahead under the existing 2018 Airports NPS (NPS are the frameworks allowing fast-track overall consent bypassing local planning via DCOs). But no, this is sucked into the Airports NPS review. Heathrow also hope to get changes to the law to eliminate some consultations and hopes for no judicial review. If not, 2029 becomes 2032 at the very earliest. See the chart at the foot of page 27.

 

[Snow1964]

BBC reporting a court case to object to expansion of Luton Airport because it was not lawful has failed

The High Court has ruled the government did not act unlawfully when approving an expansion of London Luton Airport.
Campaign group Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (Ladacan) had challenged the development consent granted by Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander.
Planning inspectors had advised that the proposals be rejected as the benefits did not outweigh environmental harm, which the secretary of state disagreed with.
Nick Platts, the managing director of Luton Rising which owns the airport, said he welcomed the decision.
Last year London Luton Airport was the UK's fifth busiest airport with 16.9 million passengers, a figure they want to double to 32 million by 2043.
The expansion proposals included a new terminal, an extension to the current airfield platform and new facilities.
Ladacan first launched its legal claim in May, writing to the transport secretary to oppose her backing of the scheme.
The group argued that the approval of Luton Airport's expansion was unlawful because it ignored key climate and environmental impacts.
It also said the decision to expand Gatwick Airport had considered greenhouse gas emissions as a key factor, but the decision had been done differently for the Luton project.
Mrs Justice Lang dismissed this argument and found that the Gatwick case was not a binding precedent and involved different circumstances.
She also rejected environmental concerns, ruling that the secretary of state had lawfully assessed climate impacts.

Government was not unlawful in London Luton Airport expansion - BBC News

Mrs Justice Lang rules the transport secretary lawfully assessed climate impacts.

www.bbc.com

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Meanwhile, Manchester airport work is never ending.

 

[thejuggler]

Meanwhile, Manchester airport work is never ending.

Leeds Bradford similar. Between end of October and last weekend there have been yet more changes in the route between the original terminal and new departure area as work on the next phase to rebuild the check in area advances.

Lots of confused passengers trying to work out the new signage.

 

[camflyer]

Meanwhile, Manchester airport work is never ending.

Maybe time for Swampy to come out of retirement.

 

[Peter Wilde]

Although if extra taxi fuel is uplifted and then burnt, there will be no penalty during flight.

Really? How, exactly? If a plane takes off with xx kg more fuel than it needs for the flight, surely the only way for it to arrive at the destination without that xx kg of extra fuel would be to burn it off by flying at less than economical speed/height, or via a longer dogleg or circling route. Making the journey less fuel-efficient in all cases ...

 

[gabrielhj07]

Really? How, exactly? If a plane takes off with xx kg more fuel than it needs for the flight, surely the only way for it to arrive at the destination without that xx kg of extra fuel would be to burn it off by flying at less than economical speed/height, or via a longer dogleg or circling route. Making the journey less fuel-efficient in all cases ...

My post was in reply to a suggestion that extra fuel taken for “takeoff delays” would create a penalty for the “whole flight”.