Airport expansions

[Bald Rick]

Fairly easy to extend it, though, as while one end has Luton directly next to it and a massive cliff (not as pronounced as it was with the road added I guess) the other end is just farmland. Offer the right price and it can easily be purchased for an extension.

(One could argue that extending it the other way over Luton would be an improvement, though )

It's not exactly flat at the western end either, would probably need some fairly significant earthworks to make a runway out of it.

This, and the airport have bought it anyway. But not for a runway extension.

 

[camflyer]

The usefulness of an airport for potential passengers depends on the destinations served. For example, Luton focusses on short-haul flights to popular holiday resorts, Eastern Europe and Tel Aviv. EasyJet and Ryanair respectively provide services to UK domestic and Irish destinations and there are a limited number of services to major Western European cities, but there are no long-haul flights whatsoever.

I suspect an expanded Luton will try to attract a Middle East carrier such as Etihad to give more route options just as Emirates are at Stansted.

 

[QSK19]

I suspect an expanded Luton will try to attract a Middle East carrier such as Etihad to give more route options just as Emirates are at Stansted.

Indeed. In such a scenario, maybe Etihad could use their future A321LR for flights to Luton. Seems a suitably-sized aircraft for such a route and the provision of 2 First Class, 14 Business Class and 144 Economy seats looks interesting.

 

[YorkRailFan]

I suspect an expanded Luton will try to attract a Middle East carrier such as Etihad to give more route options just as Emirates are at Stansted.

Wouldn't surprise me if Emirates' sister carrier, FlyDubai were to start Luton flights.

 

[QSK19]

Wouldn't surprise me if Emirates' sister carrier, FlyDubai were to start Luton flights.

Maybe also an outside punt at IndiGo flying 321s there as part of expansion into Europe.

 

[camflyer]

Maybe also an outside punt at IndiGo flying 321s there as part of expansion into Europe.

Indeed. Given the local demographics a route to India could work well.

Meanwhile, the BBC have the headline "Man plans to sell house". Must be a slow news day...

London Luton Airport expansion sees man plan to sell his house

London Luton Airport is planning to grow its passenger numbers to 32 million by 2043.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[pug1]

My concern with all this is that something will happen at some point where airlines put the brakes on or maybe even go backwards. In the case of private sector investment I’d say indeed go ahead. When it comes to public money, well that’s best spent elsewhere. Aviation is cyclical and volatile, public investment is best focussed on surface transport like road and rail which isn’t as susceptible to fluctuations in demand.

 

[daodao]

I suspect an expanded Luton will try to attract a Middle East carrier such as Etihad to give more route options just as Emirates are at Stansted.

Luton Airport has a single runway, whose length is only 2,162 m (7,093 ft) and it occupies a hill-top location, with a roughly 40 m (130 ft) drop-off at the western end of the runway. As @Bald Rick has pointed out, this is unsuitable for the larger aircraft typically used on long-haul flights, and there are no plans to lengthen the runway (only possible at the eastern end), merely plans to expand the terminal capacity.

My post was simply to point out that not all airports provide the full range of destinations. In the London area, there are 3 other airports with longer runways that can service long-haul flights, although the furthest that one can currently fly directly from Stansted by scheduled services is Dubai.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

In USA news CHA - Chattanooga Metropolitan airport has expanded and we now have 8 gates. Quite a few new destinations being added and one new airline- the dreaded Spirit Airlines .

 

[Chester1]

Luton Airport has a single runway, whose length is only 2,162 m (7,093 ft) and it occupies a hill-top location, with a roughly 40 m (130 ft) drop-off at the western end of the runway. As @Bald Rick has pointed out, this is unsuitable for the larger aircraft typically used on long-haul flights, and there are no plans to lengthen the runway (only possible at the eastern end), merely plans to expand the terminal capacity.

My post was simply to point out that not all airports provide the full range of destinations. In the London area, there are 3 other airports with longer runways that can service long-haul flights, although the furthest that one can currently fly directly from Stansted by scheduled services is Dubai.

The A321 XLR might open up some extra routes but nothing spectacular. The City, Luton and Gatwick expansions are for more of what they are already do. I am struggling to think of a British airport that in the modern era, once established, has fundamentally changed its target passengers.

 

[daodao]

The A321 XLR might open up some extra routes but nothing spectacular. The City, Luton and Gatwick expansions are for more of what they are already do. I am struggling to think of a British airport that in the modern era, once established, has fundamentally changed its target passengers.

In Scotland, Prestwick airport lost its primary role as the transatlantic gateway after 1990 to Abbotsinch airport, but now Glasgow only has a single transatlantic destination (Toronto). Edinburgh (Turnhouse) is now Scotland's main airport for long-haul flights.

 

[Howardh]

I've just flown to/from Newquay and noticed a lot of building work going on, but no explanation as to what exactly they are doing. (we were walked round the back of the "arrivals hall"!)
The departures terminal is adequate for one, maybe two flights but any more and they would struggle.

One issue for me was on arrival I just missed the bus, the next was slightly over an hour away, and although you could enter departures landside, and the toilets were open, the cafe bar was closed and no drinks/snacks machines.

So can anyone inform me what are they developing?

 

[Dstock7080]

Faster, Smoother, Better: Heathrow’s £10 Billion Private Investment Plan to Make Every Journey Better

-

mediacentre.heathrow.com

Heathrow to now progress on:
- demolishing the long closed Terminal 1
- expanding Terminal 2 across the vacant space
- build a new southern road tunnel to improve access

 

[thejuggler]

The new terminal area at Leeds Bradford is now open, but far from finished.

From my wife and daughter who were through it last week.

The seats are uncomfortable, pray you aren't delayed!
Signage is appalling
Gates are now split between old and new terminals so if you are in the new terminal and are needing gates 1-8 you will be walking against all passengers going to the new terminal in order to board.
Only one tiny display screen was working
It was so cold they went and sat in the old terminal. Aircon not balanced?

On return the info on the luggage conveyor screen was wrong. The two arriving flights were mixed up.

The external areas for arrivals from the new terminal is far from finished. All passengers are now ejected via a fire escape and temporary ramp onto the old car park access road to be confronted with very little information on where taxis, buses and pick up is.

For anyone meeting passengers there is one A3 poster stating 'arrivals' fastened to a temporary fence near the new ramp and there is nowhere indoors to wait. Not an issue in summer, not so pleasant if it ever does rain again.

Hopefully it will be finished by the time I'm back there in October.

Work has also started on the next phase of work with lots of false walls which may lead to congestion between the Jet2 check in area and route through to security.

 

[cactustwirly]

Faster, Smoother, Better: Heathrow’s £10 Billion Private Investment Plan to Make Every Journey Better

-

mediacentre.heathrow.com

Heathrow to now progress on:
- demolishing the long closed Terminal 1
- expanding Terminal 2 across the vacant space
- build a new southern road tunnel to improve access

They really need to do something about Terminal 3, well overdue for a refurbishment. Very dated and dingy.

 

[BrianW]

Execution of 'refurbishment' work upsets ongoing operations; it's more readily done when there is new additional space coming onstream. I appreciate that may mean a long wait unless (part of) terminal 1 can be brought back into use. I guess the architects/ facility managers may have fun moving their chess pieces, while their 'finance people' seek more income to pay for it.

 

[Cloud Strife]

As @Bald Rick has pointed out, this is unsuitable for the larger aircraft typically used on long-haul flights, and there are no plans to lengthen the runway (only possible at the eastern end), merely plans to expand the terminal capacity.

The A321XLR could manage it in a low density configuration (such as the Ethiad one described above) to somewhere like Doha, if we're assuming that it only transports passengers and not cargo. Taking cargo to Luton wouldn't be a problem, but it would be probably a no-go on the return to Doha. The XLR is a really capable plane, so Luton's runway is not a major problem in itself.

Having said that, I don't think Etihad would want to associate their brand with Luton for various reasons. Something like FlyDubai, yes, but I can't see Ethiad's marketing people ever agreeing to serve Luton.

I am struggling to think of a British airport that in the modern era, once established, has fundamentally changed its target passengers.

Aberdeen is perhaps a good example. It used to be a very business-orientated airport, now the profile is very much leisure and the oil rig traffic is far less than it used to be.

I think Derry Airport is also a good example of something that changed twice. It was opened as a domestic airport (and Dublin, funded by the Irish government) for business use to try and stimulate the local economy. Then Ryanair turned up and turned it into a low cost hub. Then they pulled out, and the airport went back to the original mission of having a PSO route to London for business use along with some random charter flights, and the PSO to Dublin is supposed to come back as well.

merely plans to expand the terminal capacity.

I'm not convinced by these plans for Luton Airport. It will involve duplicating facilities across two terminals and without passengers being able to move between the two, when the low cost model would be better served by having a single large central security checkpoint and passengers being able to move freely between the two terminals. It's obvious they can't expand the existing terminal anymore, but separate terminals seems like a massive step back.

 

[TravelDream]

Luton Airport has a single runway, whose length is only 2,162 m (7,093 ft) and it occupies a hill-top location, with a roughly 40 m (130 ft) drop-off at the western end of the runway. As @Bald Rick has pointed out, this is unsuitable for the larger aircraft typically used on long-haul flights, and there are no plans to lengthen the runway (only possible at the eastern end), merely plans to expand the terminal capacity.

My post was simply to point out that not all airports provide the full range of destinations. In the London area, there are 3 other airports with longer runways that can service long-haul flights, although the furthest that one can currently fly directly from Stansted by scheduled services is Dubai.

Luton's runway isn't crazy short. Even from the UK, Emirates sends a 777-300ER daily from Newcastle with it's 2,330m runway. Qatar used to fly a 787-8 from Cardiff to Doha daily and tui still flies to Florida/ Barbados from there and Cardiff's runway is 2354m. Both runways are not significantly longer than Luton's. Widebodies I'd probably rule out, but there's no reason why the latest narrowbody aircraft wouldn't make it to the Middle East with zero issues whatsoever.

The problem with Luton is it has the lowest premium traffic level of any London airport. For long-haul, you're talking Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and then Luton. But the traffic level to and via the Middle East still astounds me. It's quite possible we'll see flyDubai or Qatar with their new A321s one day. I wouldn't be surprised to see ever expanding Turkish Airlines announce Stansted or Luton soon either.

The A321XLR could manage it in a low density configuration

The A320 NEO family has excellent short field performance. Much better than the 737 Max family. An A321XLR should be able to get to Doha/ Abu Dhabi in Qatar's/Etihad's standard configuration without issue. The 787 also has excellent short runway abilities and Doha, for example, isn't that long a flight.

 

[Joe Paxton]

Faster, Smoother, Better: Heathrow’s £10 Billion Private Investment Plan to Make Every Journey Better

-

mediacentre.heathrow.com

Heathrow to now progress on:
- demolishing the long closed Terminal 1
- expanding Terminal 2 across the vacant space
- build a new southern road tunnel to improve access

The proposed southern road tunnel to the Central Terminal Area is interesting - the reliance on the one existing tunnel for public landside access to the CTA access does feel a bit tenuous, though Heathrow have managed to make it work all these years.

A new southern tunnel would have the potential to change traffic patterns a fair bit, and bring more CTA bound traffic to areas south of the airport - Staines, Ashford (Middlesex/Surrey) and Feltham. But it'd also bring new public transport access opportunities in the form of bus and coach routes.

 

[Cloud Strife]

tui still flies to Florida/ Barbados from there

One point about charter flights is that they usually don't carry cargo, so that helps a lot with shorter runways.

Widebodies I'd probably rule out, but there's no reason why the latest narrowbody aircraft wouldn't make it to the Middle East with zero issues whatsoever.

The A321XLR should manage it without cargo, but it would be iffy if they wanted to take cargo unless it was light weight, high value stuff. No problem in the Doha-Luton direction though.

But the traffic level to and via the Middle East still astounds me.

A lot of it is simply the fact that the airports are just brilliantly located for going anywhere except the Americas.

I wouldn't be surprised to see ever expanding Turkish Airlines announce Stansted or Luton soon either.

Luton would actually be a very savvy move by Turkish Airlines. They're pretty much trying to connect everything to everything through Istanbul, and Luton would be ideal for a A321neo rotation from Istanbul. The behemoth that is Istanbul Airport is still expanding, and they think the airport can manage 200m passengers yearly. Even by the end of 2025, they'll be able to accommodate 120m passengers yearly and 148 flight movements per hour, and they eventually want to have five runways (!) in use at any one time.

Doesn't change the fact that the airport is rubbish for passengers, though!

 

[TravelDream]

The A321XLR should manage it without cargo, but it would be iffy if they wanted to take cargo unless it was light weight, high value stuff. No problem in the Doha-Luton direction though.

Are you certain on this?
I am no A320 expert, but the A320 family are far superior to the 737 family in terms of short field performance.
Luton's runway is not particularly short and Doha not particularly far.

A lot of this is moot though as Luton seems content on targeting low cost traffic as well as business/ private jet travel rather than mainline full-service carriers.

A lot of it is simply the fact that the airports are just brilliantly located for going anywhere except the Americas.

A lot of the traffic they take they are very poorly geographically positioned to take. W. Europe to Africa being one big example or Europe to N.E. Asia being another. Even on the Kangaroo route, they are arguably too close to Europe and too far from Oz/ NZ (as Qatar's operational struggles with NZ flights goes to show).

 

[AlastairFraser]

A new southern tunnel would have the potential to change traffic patterns a fair bit, and bring more CTA bound traffic to areas south of the airport - Staines, Ashford (Middlesex/Surrey) and Feltham. But it'd also bring new public transport access opportunities in the form of bus and coach routes.

Indeed. The former X26 (now the SL5) could cut off a fair bit of the dog leg around the Northern and Eastern Perimeter roads using the new southern approach tunnel.

 

[BrianW]

The proposed southern road tunnel to the Central Terminal Area is interesting - the reliance on the one existing tunnel for public landside access to the CTA access does feel a bit tenuous, though Heathrow have managed to make it work all these years.

A new southern tunnel would have the potential to change traffic patterns a fair bit, and bring more CTA bound traffic to areas south of the airport - Staines, Ashford (Middlesex/Surrey) and Feltham. But it'd also bring new public transport access opportunities in the form of bus and coach routes.

Does this indicate an end to thoughts of a southern rail tunnel? I can understand exasperation with the rail industry's performance regarding delivery of HS2. Buses and coaches worked well enough before the Piccadilly Line extension and Heathrow Express.

 

[Joe Paxton]

Does this indicate an end to thoughts of a southern rail tunnel? I can understand exasperation with the rail industry's performance regarding delivery of HS2. Buses and coaches worked well enough before the Piccadilly Line extension and Heathrow Express.

Pretty sure a southern rail access plan is not currently being actively pursued by Heathrow, but it's inevitably an idea that will continue to be thought about and I expect a version will resurface in the future.

 

[Wolfie]

Does this indicate an end to thoughts of a southern rail tunnel? I can understand exasperation with the rail industry's performance regarding delivery of HS2. Buses and coaches worked well enough before the Piccadilly Line extension and Heathrow Express.

What worked ok 50 years ago at a much smaller airport with much less traffic in general wouldn't necessarily work now.

 

[Joe Paxton]

What worked ok 50 years ago at a much smaller airport with much less traffic in general wouldn't necessarily work now.

Also, as time progressed buses and coaches increasingly did not work well enough for Heathrow access!

 

[camflyer]

Pretty sure a southern rail access plan is not currently being actively pursued by Heathrow, but it's inevitably an idea that will continue to be thought about and I expect a version will resurface in the future.

I'd like to see the Western Access rail scheme done first as it is simpler (and cheaper) with some clear benefits.

 

[Dstock7080]

The proposed southern road tunnel to the Central Terminal Area is interesting - the reliance on the one existing tunnel for public landside access to the CTA access does feel a bit tenuous, though Heathrow have managed to make it work all these years.

A new southern tunnel would have the potential to change traffic patterns a fair bit, and bring more CTA bound traffic to areas south of the airport - Staines, Ashford (Middlesex/Surrey) and Feltham. But it'd also bring new public transport access opportunities in the form of bus and coach routes.

I hope it is a 'new' tunnel rather than repurposing the existing Cargo tunnel, which was used by some service buses (82, 105, 140) when Terminal 4 was initially opened.

 

[Bald Rick]

Does this indicate an end to thoughts of a southern rail tunnel?

No - the ‘southern‘ rail connection was coming out via T5 to the west then turning south.

The southern road tunnel will be directly from the Central Terminal Area to the south. Depending on how the approach roads are built / rebuilt, this could significantly ease congestion in the M25/M4 intersection area.

 

[Wolfie]

Also, as time progressed buses and coaches increasingly did not work well enough for Heathrow access!

Indeed. That's exactly why the rail links were built in the first place.