Airport expansions

[Tetchytyke]

I suspect most of Greater London is impacted by aircraft noise at some point due to London having multiple airports and multiple routes in and out of those airports.

To an extent, although it's really only Heathrow and City which have the flight paths right over the most densely populated bits of the city. And City's noise isn't so bad all things considered: the planes are relatively small and the approach is steeper than usual.

What's interesting is that HACAN have identified that planes are now lower on departure than they used to be, and that the planes are now all flying right bang down the centre of the 3km-wide departure routes. On arrival they also have evidence that the arrival corridors are more concentrated than they used to be.

Flight Paths

hacan.org.uk

The big change took place in the mid-1990s. Before that, most planes joined their final approach path round about the Putney/Barnes area (if they were landing over West London).

From the mid-1990s aircraft were expected to join their final approach path up to 25 miles from the airport (around the Lewisham area).

In order to do this, aircraft were guided from the stacks in a trombone pattern rather than taking a more direct route towards Barnes.

This ‘trombone’ method resulted in many areas, particularly in North, East and South-East London, getting many more planes than before. When the east wind blows areas west of the airport are similarly affected. (diagram by Heathrow Airport)

Since then there has been no fundamental change in landing flight paths but the way flight have been brought into land have changed. But many more planes are joining their final approach further out and there is evidence that the corridors the planes use (before they reach the final 15 miles or so) have become narrower.

Departures follow what are known as Noise Preferential Routes (NPRs). These are bands 3 kilometres wide.

The important change that has taken place in recent years in that new technology enables most aircraft to fly along the centre-line of the NPRs. This has resulted in concentration of planes over particular communities. It has been made worse for these communities by the fact that large, heavily-laden planes are flying lower after take-off than planes previously were. The CAA is currently undertaking a major study looking at the consequence of planes taking off more steeply. It is expected to be published in summer 2018.

It's a dilemma: do you spread things out and share the love, or do you concentrate everything over a few communities. The CAA flightpath review seems to be favouring the latter. Hopefully something comes of the related CAA review to have steeper approach and departures from Heathrow.

I can only hope that the government force Heathrow to provide much more sound insulation to the schools and homes affected, and that the scope of the schemes extend a lot further out. No doubt Rachel from Accounts will see this as 'anti-business' though.

My point was different though. The argument always seems to be "lololol don't buy a house on Myrtle Avenue if you don't like planes lololol!". The point is that the noise issues extend far beyond Heathrow and, ironically, some of the worst affected areas are actually quite a long way from Heathrow. Places like Hayes and Uxbridge, within a couple of miles of the airport, don't really get too much noise, yet places like Brixton and Mile End get clobbered all day long.

 

[Mawkie]

No doubt Rachel from Accounts will see this as 'anti-business' though.

You make some good points, but when people use these silly misogynistic names it reduces the credibility of their overall argument.

Why not just use her name?

 

[Tester]

You make some good points, but when people use these silly misogynistic names it reduces the credibility of their overall argument.

Why not just use her name?

Misogynistic is a big call here - care to back it up?

 

[Acfb]

How would we say the alleged 'aircraft noise issues' in London compare to say Tokyo, Dubai, Mumbai, New York etc. Is London the worst? There are lots of Haneda widebodies flying over central Tokyo and Mumbai has effective 24 hour operation using just the one runway.

 

[sprunt]

Misogynistic is a big call here - care to back it up?

I don't recall any male Chancellors being patronisingly referred to as "Rishi from accounts" or "Jeremy from accounts".

 

[Tester]

You'll have to do rather better than 'I don't recall'.

Rishi from accounts sounds good to me - but are you going to complain that it's racist?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't recall any male Chancellors being patronisingly referred to as "Rishi from accounts" or "Jeremy from accounts".

You must surely have missed what I used to say about old Gideon Osborne. I hold Reeves in similar esteem. This is not a compliment.

Anyway. I can’t see this lot making Heathrow do anything about the significant noise pollution that their third runway will generate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2025 ==

How would we say the alleged 'aircraft noise issues' in London compare to say Tokyo, Dubai, Mumbai, New York etc. Is London the worst?

Tokyo Haneda’s flight paths appear to mostly be over Tokyo Bay, same with JFK over Far Rockaway and then out to sea. And we saw in 1999 the other issue with lots of flights over residential areas when the idiot flying AA587 killed a load of people on the ground. La Guardia is right over Queens.

Dubai and Mumbai are in countries where they don’t care about these sorts of things.

 

[Class 170101]

You must surely have missed what I used to say about old Gideon Osborne. I hold Reeves in similar esteem. This is not a compliment.

Anyway. I can’t see this lot making Heathrow do anything about the significant noise pollution that their third runway will generate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2025 ==

Nor if @Bald Rick is to be believed the amount of road transport that will still be needed to get to Heathroe if you live south and / or west of Heathrow. The government needs to get the private sector to fund Western and Southern Rail Access in my book otherwise you can forget green targets due to road transport being needed to get to Heathrow from those compass points.

And we saw in 1999 the other issue with lots of flights over residential areas when the idiot flying AA587 killed a load of people on the ground. La Guardia is right over Queens.

I would have said there was a more recent incident than that. How about the Air India incident last June / July? How many died on the ground there?

 

[Bald Rick]

Nor if @Bald Rick is to be believed the amount of road transport that will still be needed to get to Heathroe if you live south and / or west of Heathrow.

You don’t need to beleive me. Just read the Hesthrow expansion website, and see how much mention there is of new rail links. They are not in the proposals.

 

[weeklycommuter]

With all the concern about borders and immigration I can see a future Government ending transit without going through immigration control at British airports and following the practice in the USA of forcing everyone arriving at a British airport from outside the Common Travel Area to go through immigration control. This would end any prospect of a third runway or any other expansion at Heathrow Airport as it would immediately end its use as a hub airport leading to a very big drop in the number of people flying into and out of the airport. The expansion of other British airports would not be affected as they are not hub airports.

 

[Elwyn]

With all the concern about borders and immigration I can see a future Government ending transit without going through immigration control at British airports and following the practice in the USA of forcing everyone arriving at a British airport from outside the Common Travel Area to go through immigration control. This would end any prospect of a third runway or any other expansion at Heathrow Airport as it would immediately end its use as a hub airport leading to a very big drop in the number of people flying into and out of the airport. The expansion of other British airports would not be affected as they are not hub airports.

There are countries whose nationals are allowed to transit airside in the UK without a visa, and others where a transit visa is required, even though they don’t routinely meet a Borderforce Officer. It’s not a perfect system I am sure, but that’s a way of managing high risk nationalities who abuse airside transit in significant numbers. That’s all in place now. I am not sure I see how a 3rd runway makes any significant difference to that risk.

 

[weeklycommuter]

There are countries whose nationals are allowed to transit airside in the UK without a visa, and others where a transit visa is required, even though they don’t routinely meet a Borderforce Officer. It’s not a perfect system I am sure, but that’s a way of managing high risk nationalities who abuse airside transit in significant numbers. That’s all in place now. I am not sure I see how a 3rd runway makes any significant difference to that risk.

Even if it makes no practical difference a future Government may do this anyway as a way a convincing voters that the Government is further tightening immigration control, especially as other countries including the USA follow this practice. Airlines would then stop using Heathrow Airport as a hub for passengers from outside the Common Travel Area as travellers to and from destinations outside the Common Travel Area would no longer want to use Heathrow Airport as a hub to change flights. This would inevitably mean fewer flights not more flights at Heathrow Airport and would end any prospect of Heathrow Airport making money from additional flights for which a third runway would be needed.

 

[camflyer]

Nor if @Bald Rick is to be believed the amount of road transport that will still be needed to get to Heathroe if you live south and / or west of Heathrow. The government needs to get the private sector to fund Western and Southern Rail Access in my book otherwise you can forget green targets due to road transport being needed to get to Heathrow from those compass points.

Interesting how we are fine with the private structure funding transport infrastructure but we are against them running it.

 

[weeklycommuter]

For Heathrow the planning permission needs to include Southern and Western Rail Access as a requirement of planning permission, with private rather than government funding.

It won’t, sadly (be included, regardless of funding). I expect this to be a significant point of contention in the public inquiry.

Since the opening of Terminal 5 in 2008 there is severe congestion on all the roads around Heathrow Airport especially the M25. Adding more roads will not solve this. Further increasing the number of people travelling to and from Heathrow Airport will not work without more rail capacity and ensuring that these additional passengers travel to and from Heathrow Airport by train. Failing to include more rail capacity makes any Heathrow Airport expansion proposals unworkable.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Interesting how we are fine with the private structure funding transport infrastructure but we are against them running it.

Not sure what your point is? Heathrow is a private business, if they want to expand then they should pay for the infrastructure enhancements required to support that expansion.

Who operates the trains once it is built is a different matter entirely.

Even if it makes no practical difference a future Government may do this anyway as a way a convincing voters that the Government is further tightening immigration control, especially as other countries including the USA follow this practice.

I’m always prepared to be surprised, but I can’t see any government doing that unless there are significant numbers of people misusing the airside transfer. And there isn’t really, not with the biometrics required for domestic flights out of Heathrow and Manchester.

The expansion of other British airports would not be affected as they are not hub airports.

Manchester also offers airside transfer.

The government needs to get the private sector to fund Western and Southern Rail Access

There isn’t the appetite from the government, though, because there isn’t anywhere to put trains from Heathrow once they get to Feltham. T5 has space for additional railway lines from the south, the box for extra platforms was built alongside the rest of T5, but unless you run it as a shuttle to Feltham or Staines there’s nowhere for the trains to go. Definitely one in the too difficult pile.

 

[TravelDream]

With all the concern about borders and immigration I can see a future Government ending transit without going through immigration control at British airports and following the practice in the USA of forcing everyone arriving at a British airport from outside the Common Travel Area to go through immigration control. This would end any prospect of a third runway or any other expansion at Heathrow Airport as it would immediately end its use as a hub airport leading to a very big drop in the number of people flying into and out of the airport. The expansion of other British airports would not be affected as they are not hub airports.

The US is one of the very few countries which don't allow visa-less airside* transit.

Primarily that is because no US airport is set up to have a sterile, departure only, international departures terminal. All UK airports with airside transit (just Heathrow and Manchester) are set up to segregate passengers appropriately.

Some countries do it differently again. When I was in Thailand, I flew Chiang Mai to Bangkok to London. Obviously Chaing Mai to Bangkok is a domestic flight, but we went through immigration is Chiang Mai, then mixed with domestic passengers and then went straight to the departures lounge in Bangkok skipping immigration there. Not sure how secure that is and if we could have gone with the other passengers to domestic arrivals.

*Though the UK, like many other countries, require visas from national of certain countries to airside transit. Everyone who that applies to will be checked by their airline at check-in at their departure point with Border Force conducting random checks.

 

[Class 170101]

Interesting how we are fine with the private structure funding transport infrastructure but we are against them running it.

Personally I'm not because it wouldn't surprise me if the government screw up anyway.

There isn’t the appetite from the government, though, because there isn’t anywhere to put trains from Heathrow once they get to Feltham. T5 has space for additional railway lines from the south, the box for extra platforms was built alongside the rest of T5, but unless you run it as a shuttle to Feltham or Staines there’s nowhere for the trains to go. Definitely one in the too difficult pile.

But is that really the case? I could understand pre-pandemic but now? I didn't think SWR ran as many trains now compared to before 2020.

 

[Cloud Strife]

It does seem like there are too many airports, even in the Scottish central belt. I would even question the need for Glasgow Airport to exist long term as it serves basically no destinations now that Edinburgh doesn't have apart from some Highlands and Islands flights.

I don't think there's any sense whatsoever in closing down Glasgow. Prestwick is pretty much pointless nowadays, but there's still plenty of reason for both Edinburgh and Glasgow to exist, not least the fact that a combined airport would have to cater for a ridiculously large amount of passengers, and getting that built will not be easy.

It's actually quite a healthy situation to have Glasgow and Edinburgh competing on the open market. Glasgow is just about to have a massive expansion project starting, and it's very likely that they'll claw back people from Edinburgh once the airside expansion is complete.

With all the concern about borders and immigration I can see a future Government ending transit without going through immigration control at British airports and following the practice in the USA of forcing everyone arriving at a British airport from outside the Common Travel Area to go through immigration control.

There's no chance of that happening. There's no risk to the UK by allowing airside transit, but there's a huge amount of transit traffic to lose, hence why the UK very quickly dropped the ETA requirement for passengers in transit. The UK also doesn't permit airside transit to the CTA destinations without an ETA/visa, so in practice, an EU ID card can't be used for transiting the UK. Having said that, the UK is fairly sensible about airside transit, so transit visas aren't required if you already have a residence permit/visa from quite a few countries, including the EU/EEA/CH, USA and Canada.

 

[pug1]

I don't think there's any sense whatsoever in closing down Glasgow. Prestwick is pretty much pointless nowadays, but there's still plenty of reason for both Edinburgh and Glasgow to exist, not least the fact that a combined airport would have to cater for a ridiculously large amount of passengers, and getting that built will not be easy.

It's actually quite a healthy situation to have Glasgow and Edinburgh competing on the open market. Glasgow is just about to have a massive expansion project starting, and it's very likely that they'll claw back people from Edinburgh once the airside expansion is complete.



There's no chance of that happening. There's no risk to the UK by allowing airside transit, but there's a huge amount of transit traffic to lose, hence why the UK very quickly dropped the ETA requirement for passengers in transit. The UK also doesn't permit airside transit to the CTA destinations without an ETA/visa, so in practice, an EU ID card can't be used for transiting the UK. Having said that, the UK is fairly sensible about airside transit, so transit visas aren't required if you already have a residence permit/visa from quite a few countries, including the EU/EEA/CH, USA and Canada.

A point about GLA and EDI. They are both private sector concerns. Any talk about closing one or the other is therefore pointless because for as long as there is an investment there will be an airport(s). People need to understand this principle. Airport infrastructure in the U.K. is primarily private sector led, this shows no sign of abating. Ironically it is the unviable once’s that are propped up by public investment. I would argue therefore that it is those airports that should close as it’s those where the commercial market has rejected.

 

[Chester1]

With all the concern about borders and immigration I can see a future Government ending transit without going through immigration control at British airports and following the practice in the USA of forcing everyone arriving at a British airport from outside the Common Travel Area to go through immigration control. This would end any prospect of a third runway or any other expansion at Heathrow Airport as it would immediately end its use as a hub airport leading to a very big drop in the number of people flying into and out of the airport. The expansion of other British airports would not be affected as they are not hub airports.

The government backed down on making transit passengers require an ETA after lobbying by Heathrow and Manchester Airports. Its highly unlikely they would do something much more damaging than a £16 fee and a 5 minute online form. The demand for Heathrow landing slots is so big that even the measure you suggested probably wouldn't prevent all the new capacity being filled. The loss in transit passengers would no doubt be entirely replaced with UK passengers who would otherwise use the other London airports.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I would argue therefore that it is those airports that should close as it’s those where the commercial market has rejected.

I'd generally agree with that. If the private sector can't make money from an airport then that's the clearest sign you'll ever get that, quite simply, the airport is not needed.

The only exception to that is going to be the remote airports, such as those operated by HIAL in Scotland, which are vital to the local communities but are never going to make money.

 

[pug1]

I'd generally agree with that. If the private sector can't make money from an airport then that's the clearest sign you'll ever get that, quite simply, the airport is not needed.

The only exception to that is going to be the remote airports, such as those operated by HIAL in Scotland, which are vital to the local communities but are never going to make money.

Of course in some instances such as the HIAL airports where air services are a lifeline then they must be subsidised, but the sorts of subsidies seen at those will be minuscule when compared to keeping airports like Cardiff on life support and the sheer lunacy of reopening DSA at huge expense when the private sector has already rejected it.

The U.K. is small in landmass and though densely populated most people in England live within 60-90 minutes of at least one airport. Airline economics don’t recognise city or unitary/regional authority boundaries. They go where they know they’ll get lots of people using their services. Hence Bristol has taken most of Cardiffs natural market and why DSA is a basket case because people in South Yorkshire can access MAN, LBA, BHX and EMA which all offer greater choice. Local pride doesn’t a viable airport make, but it seems it doesn’t stop politicians from wasting £hundreds of millions on these projects.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Hence Bristol has taken most of Cardiffs natural market

Tbh, once Bristol's current runway reaches capacity, there is limited potential for further expansion, and Cardiff could end up taking some more traffic then (especially with improved transport links).

 

[Acfb]

Of course Bristol airport should have been at Filton with good rail links to the GW mainline and the M4/M5 but we are long past that now.

The only way Glasgow could be closed is a massive expansion at Edinburgh as that is already bursting at the seams and I can't see either being politically popular in the respective cities. People may not support their local airport expanding but they don't like them being totally closed either. Prestwick could easily be closed without much fuss though.

Also does Belfast need two airports (plus Derry not far away)?

I wasn't seriously suggesting closing Glasgow in even the medium term future as it provides a useful role for its local market (Glasgow/Renfrewshire/Ayrshire etc) and the Emirates A380 flight is holding its own just there's no reason for people from Edinburgh to trek over to Glasgow anymore now that the Jet2 operation at Edinburgh is about the same size as Glasgow. I was agreeing with @pug1 about airport planning and transport links etc. Seems crazy that Prestwick has a proper airport rail connection and GLA does not although I would not support building one now.

 

[pug1]

Tbh, once Bristol's current runway reaches capacity, there is limited potential for further expansion, and Cardiff could end up taking some more traffic then (especially with improved transport links).

It won’t reach capacity, Gatwick is the world’s busiest single runway airport and its handling far more than BRS could ever hope to achieve. The catchment area has its limits and it’s pretty much reaching those limits now. Using the overspill angle (that doesn’t even exist) isn’t a suitable justification for the slagging of £hundreds of millions.

I am a believe that CWL has its place, but it must adjust to its more attainable levels of service and not simply assume that there is demand for it to serve some of the major long haul destinations just because it serves a capital city. There just isn’t, and the arbitrary boundaries also applies in this case to Wales and its proximity to BRS.

 

[AlastairFraser]

It won’t reach capacity, Gatwick is the world’s busiest single runway airport and its handling far more than BRS could ever hope to achieve. The catchment area has its limits and it’s pretty much reaching those limits now. Using the overspill angle (that doesn’t even exist) isn’t a suitable justification for the slagging of £hundreds of millions.

I am a believe that CWL has its place, but it must adjust to its more attainable levels of service and not simply assume that there is demand for it to serve some of the major long haul destinations just because it serves a capital city. There just isn’t, and the arbitrary boundaries also applies in this case to Wales and its proximity to BRS.

Gatwick has much better road links, however, and won't be a single runway airport for much longer. A rail or tram link to BRS will cost far more because of the local terrain than a rail or tram link to the existing Rhoose station from the airport would cost.

I agree that Cardiff won't be able to sustain many long haul destinations, but a better range of short haul destinations should be possible (especially with the likes of Ryanair and Jet2 serving the demand for cheap foreign holidays from large swathes of the Valleys).

 

[pug1]

Gatwick has much better road links, however, and won't be a single runway airport for much longer. A rail or tram link to BRS will cost far more because of the local terrain than a rail or tram link to the existing Rhoose station from the airport would cost.

I agree that Cardiff won't be able to sustain many long haul destinations, but a better range of short haul destinations should be possible (especially with the likes of Ryanair and Jet2 serving the demand for cheap foreign holidays from large swathes of the Valleys).

It’s unlikely Jet2 would cannibalise their market at BRS. Ryanair only offer a token presence at CWL in spite of the heavy incentives they get from the airport. BRS doesn’t need a rail or tram link. LGW is something like 3-4 times as busy as BRS with its one runway, BRS will never attain that level of growth. My point is there is far more latent capacity at BRS for CWL to ever need to act as overspill, because naturally as demand increases so will the facilities at BRS to cater to that.

 

[AlastairFraser]

It’s unlikely Jet2 would cannibalise their market at BRS. Ryanair only offer a token presence at CWL in spite of the heavy incentives they get from the airport. BRS doesn’t need a rail or tram link. LGW is something like 3-4 times as busy as BRS with its one runway, BRS will never attain that level of growth. My point is there is far more latent capacity at BRS for CWL to ever need to act as overspill, because naturally as demand increases so will the facilities at BRS to cater to that.

There's money to be made if Jet2 set up a second base in Cardiff, I agree they shouldn't leave BRS altogether.
I'm intrigued with your view on public transport to BRS though - the roads in the area are reaching saturation pretty rapidly, and any serious road upgrade schemes to relieve them won't be particularly cheap or useful.
A rail or light rail link is the natural choice and helps access for much more than just the Bristol metropolitan area.
There's only so many people you can convince to use a bus or coach, the different varieties of rail link are much more robustly attractive.

 

[TravelDream]

There's money to be made if Jet2 set up a second base in Cardiff, I agree they shouldn't leave BRS altogether.
I'm intrigued with your view on public transport to BRS though - the roads in the area are reaching saturation pretty rapidly, and any serious road upgrade schemes to relieve them won't be particularly cheap or useful.

Honestly, I just don't think this is the case.
The Bristol catchment area has a much larger and wealthier populous than the Cardiff one. Indeed, the Bristol catchment includes a significant amount of the Cardiff one.
I might eat my words here, but I don't think Jet2 is going to open a base in Cardiff any time soon. That goes for easyjet too.

Cardiff's main hope is Ryanair who could quite easily offer a base at both. A 2-3 plane base at Cardiff would work well focused on sun routes. I know Ryanair would have worked extensively with the airport and the sums clearly haven't added up until now.
tui clearly are making it work. Cardiff is going from 3 aircraft this summer to 4 aircraft next with them. So there is some money to be made. But Europe is a big market and tui are currently is a dominant position which allows higher pricing.

Bristol doesn't have great transport infrastructure, but neither does Cardiff.
What Bristol does have is one of the strongest public transport offerings in the UK. They have invested significantly in a new public transport interchange as a significant part of a strategy to enhance public transport options.
And I think what we are going to see in Bristol is further emphasis on public transport options. South Wales (Newport, Cardiff and Swansea) have fairly decent public transport options with both National Express and Flixbus offering frequent services (especially up to Cardiff). Bristol Airport, like many airports in the UK, will likely offer further financial inducements to encourage both continuance and expansion of those services. Especially as traffic grows.

In terms of local transport, the Bristol Airport Flyer is already one of Britain's most frequent services. It operates a very frequent 24 hour a day service on almost every day of the year. In fact, it's incredibly frequent - every 15 minutes even at 3am and every 7-8 minutes through most of the day.
Weston has a service which operates at least hourly 24/7 and Bath has an around hourly service 24/7 with the Air Decker.

Plus services like the Falcon.

Bristol already allows their staff to use the service for free until at least the end of 2027 and I imagine we'll see further promotion to the public (though parking being so profitable means they have a perverse mindset to promote parking instead).

 

[pug1]

There's money to be made if Jet2 set up a second base in Cardiff, I agree they shouldn't leave BRS altogether.
I'm intrigued with your view on public transport to BRS though - the roads in the area are reaching saturation pretty rapidly, and any serious road upgrade schemes to relieve them won't be particularly cheap or useful.
A rail or light rail link is the natural choice and helps access for much more than just the Bristol metropolitan area.
There's only so many people you can convince to use a bus or coach, the different varieties of rail link are much more robustly attractive.

Jet2 might of course, but it’s very unlikely and due to the poor performance of their new Bournemouth base it’s even less likely. They were a target of Cardiff before but they went to Bristol instead.

Most people arrive to airports like BRS by car or taxi, there’s no sign of this changing. The roads aren’t great but it’s not stopped the airport becoming one of the largest regional airports in the U.K. airlines aren’t in the business of investing in airports like Cardiff if it means spreading themselves too thinly as it just results in increased costs and reduced revenue. Not a great position to be in.