Airport expansions

[Bald Rick]

I am guessing Emirates does so well in the UK because it does very well serving people visiting friends and family in Australia.

Lots of ex-pats in the Emirates and to a lesser extent Qatar as well. There’s also quite a few ex-pats who work in Saudi but live in Dubai or Abu Dhabi with their families.

 

[Chester1]

With the friends and family market, I suspect it is because in recent decades UK citizens have tended to emigrate to Australia or New Zealand rather than North America. As they will have emigrated relatively recently they will still have good contacts with their UK based relatives hence will continue to fly regularly between the UK and Australia.

Those who emigrated to North America tended to do so several decades ago or earlier so may have lost contact with their family roots in Britain and so will not see any need to visit the UK to visit some relatives they are only very distantly related to.

I am guessing Emirates does so well in the UK because it does very well serving people visiting friends and family in Australia.

I think your probably right. There hasn't been a major wave of British migration to North America since the aftermath of the second world war. The £10 POM and "white Australia" policy only ended in the early 80s meaning there are plenty of well off Australian retires with brothers and sisters in the UK. The growth of South and South East Asian migration is another factor in the success of the Gulf hubs. I wonder if the two will sort of combine. We have similar migration patterns to the Australia. My (asian) wife is keen to visit first and second cousins in Australia. My nearest relatives there are my parents second and third cousins.

 

[russellsam]

Agreed. Emirates does well because it’s a good hub for connections to emerging markets. Links for back packers etc. obviously ex pats (though the Australian contingent in my family tend to prefer Singapore for their connections!) and mainly because Dubai is a popular holiday destination now (no idea why, I think it’s an awful place) and there are plenty of uk nationals living and working out there. Gone are the days when i
emirates were able to undercut every other airline due to state sponsorship, but it has become a formidable hub and spoke operation that due to its central location globally will continue to do exceptionally well.

The US and Canada is best served from the regions either by connections through Heathrow, Dublin or Amsterdam. The fact that Manchester has failed to hold on to the US airlines (I know the Virgin Delta partnership does help), signals that the US based airlines aren’t all that interested in serving the regional U.K. market any more. Continental gave a good account of themselves, alas they are no more. Shane really because I’m sure I remember AA running flights from Manchester and Birmingham to Chicago and Continental to EWR (from BHX) not to mention Manchester to Charlotte (?), Boston, Chicago and others with US Airways.. All gone now of course so thanks to Virgin and Aer Lingus for stepping up!

Even Gatwick which traditionally had a fairly solid U.K.-US link (I flew TWA once from Gatwick to St Louis!), well all that appears to have is a seasonal connection with Delta to JFK and it looks line BA are pulling their New York service from there leaving a Las Vegas flight and of course Norse serving a few flights over the pond.

I think therefore that any airport trying to get in on this US act need to maybe accept that now is not the time to focus on what has historically been seen as a prestigious market. The Middle East is where it’s at these days it seems.

I am not so sure. Today there are about 15 transatlantic departures from Edinburgh with some seasonal routes seeing extensions to there operating season. As always it depends whether the airlines see a viable market

 

[philosopher]

I am not so sure. Today there are about 15 transatlantic departures from Edinburgh with some seasonal routes seeing extensions to there operating season. As always it depends whether the airlines see a viable market

The high number of transatlantic flights to Edinburgh is very likely driven by American and Canadian tourists visiting Scotland. Edinburgh does also benefit from being slightly closer to North American than most other British airports which will make operating transatlantic flights slightly cheaper and make it more viable to operate narrow body airliners for these routes.

Edinburgh does have a relatively short runway (2,556 metres according to Wikipedia) so I do wonder if it is missing out from the market from the North American west coast due to this. The furthest flights it seems to have are to Calgary and Beijing. If so a runway extension would be a very obvious airport expansion that could occur.

 

[Topological]

The high number of transatlantic flights to Edinburgh is very likely driven by American and Canadian tourists visiting Scotland. Edinburgh does also benefit from being slightly closer to North American than most other British airports which will make operating transatlantic flights slightly cheaper and make it more viable to operate narrow body airliners for these routes.

Edinburgh does have a relatively short runway (2,556 metres according to Wikipedia) so I do wonder if it is missing out from the market from the North American west coast due to this. The furthest flights it seems to have are to Calgary and Beijing. If so a runway extension would be a very obvious airport expansion that could occur.

It is suggested that Edinburgh could handle an A380 take-off with full load.

However, the problem at Edinburgh is actually the taxiways and then the terminal which cannot handle such large planes.

Maybe a candidate for a small extension on the runway, but also for extensions of the supporting facilities.

 

[TravelDream]

Edinburgh does have a relatively short runway (2,556 metres according to Wikipedia) so I do wonder if it is missing out from the market from the North American west coast due to this. The furthest flights it seems to have are to Calgary and Beijing. If so a runway extension would be a very obvious airport expansion that could occur.

Nah. A 787-8/9 or A350-900 or A330-200/300 HGW version could make LA or San Fransisco no issue from that runway with a MTOW/ near MTOW load in almost all conditions.

 

[pug1]

I am not so sure. Today there are about 15 transatlantic departures from Edinburgh with some seasonal routes seeing extensions to there operating season. As always it depends whether the airlines see a viable market

That’s tourism based, I’m careful to call Edinburgh a regional airport these days.

 

[Snow1964]

Various news outlets are reporting Gatwick second runway approved by Secretary of State

Will look for a link (edit found one)

Gatwick second runway given green light by government​

The northern runway already exists parallel to the main one, but cannot be used at the same time as it is too close. The £2.2bn expansion project will bring it 12 metres further away to facilitate 100,000 more flights a year.

It is currently limited to being a taxiway and is only used for take-offs and landings if the main one has to shut.

The £2.2bn expansion project will see it move 12 metres north so both can operate simultaneously, facilitating 100,000 extra flights a year, 14,000 jobs, and £1bn a year for the economy.

It would also mean the airport could process 75 million passengers a year by the late 2030s.

Gatwick second runway given green light by government

The northern runway already exists parallel to the main one, but cannot be used at the same time as it is too close. The £2.2bn expansion project will bring it 12 metres further away to facilitate 100,000 more flights a year.

news.sky.com

 

[Magdalia]

Various news outlets are reporting Gatwick second runway approved by Secretary of State

BBC report here:

Gatwick airport second runway approved by transport secretary

There has been strong opposition against the airport wanting to use its northern runway.

www.bbc.co.uk

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander has approved plans for a second runway at London Gatwick Airport, as the government looks for economic growth opportunities.

The BBC report includes this on transport links:

It emerged planning inspectors had expressed concerns over the effect the proposals would have on several aspects on the area surrounding the airport, including traffic and noise.

In April, Gatwick Airport agreed to stricter noise controls, an enhanced insulation scheme for nearby residents, and having 54% of air passengers using public transport before the Northern Runway opened.

To achieve this target, the airport said, third parties - including the Department for Transport - would need to "support delivery of the necessary conditions and improvements required to meet this target," giving the example of reinstating the full Gatwick Express rail service.

Before the Covid-19 pandemic, the Gatwick Express ran a service of four trains per hour non-stop between the airport and London Victoria, this was reduced to two trains per hour from 2022.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Various news outlets are reporting Gatwick second runway approved by Secretary of State

Will look for a link (edit found one)

Gatwick second runway given green light by government

The northern runway already exists parallel to the main one, but cannot be used at the same time as it is too close. The £2.2bn expansion project will bring it 12 metres further away to facilitate 100,000 more flights a year.

news.sky.com

Great news. Let's hope sense prevails with Heathrow and they drop their plans, with BA making more extensive use of Gatwick.

 

[TravelDream]

Brilliant news.
And just to remind everyone, it's £2.2 billion pounds of totally private investment.

 

[Ted633]

Brilliant news.
And just to remind everyone, it's £2.2 billion pounds of totally private investment.

The BBC has opened their article for comments. Some people seemed to have missed that vital point!

 

[camflyer]

Good news. Now get on and build it.

Heathrow needs expanding too but Gatwick is a much quicker and simpler option to get started with

 

[TravelDream]

The BBC has opened their article for comments. Some people seemed to have missed that vital point!

Just took a quick look. Yes, some people are really missing that point.

Though I am glad the top comment is ''Great now build it, same with a 3rd runway at Heathrow. The UK are so slow at any infrastructure projects.''. Which I couldn't agree with more.
Though runway three is a much more difficult and costly programme which would likely need significant public investment. Not that that's a bad thing, but the state needs to ensure its investments are sound for the country and provide a good return - and not just a return for Heathrow's owners.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Brilliant news.
And just to remind everyone, it's £2.2 billion pounds of totally private investment.

Highly achievable plans with a reasonable timescale, too!

 

[PGAT]

Obvious first step would be to reintroduce the shuttle from Victoria. And increase all mainline services to 12 cars before you need to touch the infrastructure

 

[sh24]

Good news - a significant increase in capacity for a relatively modest outlay.

 

[Class 170101]

BBC report here:

Gatwick airport second runway approved by transport secretary

There has been strong opposition against the airport wanting to use its northern runway.

www.bbc.co.uk

The BBC report includes this on transport links:

I prefer Gatwick to Heathrow expansion in that it seems to have railways in all directions (North, South, East and West) and Heathrow doesn't. Also perhaps its me but Gatwick seem to have been making a lot less fuss about surface access compared to Heathrow and willing to play along with the country.

In April, Gatwick Airport agreed to stricter noise controls, an enhanced insulation scheme for nearby residents, and having 54% of air passengers using public transport before the Northern Runway opened.

To achieve this target, the airport said, third parties - including the Department for Transport - would need to "support delivery of the necessary conditions and improvements required to meet this target," giving the example of reinstating the full Gatwick Express rail service

As I have said previously if Heathrow is expanded it needs to include Southern and Western Rail Links but I know others have said this won't happen.

 

[camflyer]

As I have said previously if Heathrow is expanded it needs to include Southern and Western Rail Links but I know others have said this won't happen.

Seems incredible that the only UK city you can get a direct train to from Heathrow is London. The airport really should be a hub on the rail network. Yes, Old Oak Common will improve connections but that is already looking as if it will be a very busy station (especially until Euston is ever redeveloped)

The Western Rail Link looks to be relatively simple and could take a lot of pressure off the Elizabeth Line. The Southern Access project looks a lot more complicated though

 

[weeklycommuter]

Seems incredible that the only UK city you can get a direct train to from Heathrow is London. The airport really should be a hub on the rail network. Yes, Old Oak Common will improve connections but that is already looking as if it will be a very busy station (especially until Euston is ever redeveloped)

The Western Rail Link looks to be relatively simple and could take a lot of pressure off the Elizabeth Line. The Southern Access project looks a lot more complicated though

The Elizabeth Line now and Old Oak Common in future (which will have calls from GWR and HS2 trains) will provide a very good interchange for rail journeys between Heathrow Airport and many other UK destinations. Old Oak Common will certainly be very busy but it will also have very high capacity. The Western and Southern rail links to Heathrow Airport would be useful but I assume they will only be built if Heathrow Airport agrees to fund them.

 

[Topological]

One day they should bring back the HS2 branch from Heathrow.

However, none of these discussions about connectivity alter the fact that Heathrow does need to be extended. Whatever the rights, or wrongs, of not choosing a new location for a big London airport, the need for more capacity is clear.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Heathrow does need to be extended

It really doesn't. Heathrow just needs to operate more efficiently. Heathrow is clogged up with too many small jets.

Giving Gatwick the second usable runway is a far more sensible way forward.

 

[camflyer]

It really doesn't. Heathrow just needs to operate more efficiently. Heathrow is clogged up with too many small jets.

Giving Gatwick the second usable runway is a far more sensible way forward.

The trouble is that increasing the number of "big jets" will mean fewer short haul services which reduces its ability to operate as a hub. Heathrow cannot just survive on being a connecting point between the US and ME/Asian hubs.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The trouble is that increasing the number of "big jets" will mean fewer short haul services which reduces its ability to operate as a hub.

There's a balance. I'm not saying everything at Heathrow should be a widebody. Indeed the A321 seats more people than some widebodies do.

But when you look at the sheer number of A319 and A220 jets being used through Heathrow in a day, it's fair to say the slots aren't being used as efficiently as they could be.

 

[Snow1964]

There's a balance. I'm not saying everything at Heathrow should be a widebody. Indeed the A321 seats more people than some widebodies do.

But when you look at the sheer number of A319 and A220 jets being used through Heathrow in a day, it's fair to say the slots aren't being used as efficiently as they could be.

If you want to be very efficient, you don't mix heavy wide body planes with narrow bodies on same runway, because of the rules about small planes having to wait longer before following a larger plane (because they are affected more by the wash / turbulence).

So really need a different runway to deal with the narrow bodies (but it doesn't have to be as long for smaller planes, say 2500m instead of nearer 4000m).

Gatwick's second runway will be shorter, so won't be able to handle very long haul take offs, because fuel load needs the long main runway.

 

[Class 170101]

There's a balance. I'm not saying everything at Heathrow should be a widebody. Indeed the A321 seats more people than some widebodies do.

But when you look at the sheer number of A319 and A220 jets being used through Heathrow in a day, it's fair to say the slots aren't being used as efficiently as they could be.

But I understand an A380 actually needs the equivalent of two slots at Heathrow as its so big and relatively more cumbersome than some of the more standard size planes.

 

[TravelDream]

It really doesn't. Heathrow just needs to operate more efficiently. Heathrow is clogged up with too many small jets.

The main benefit Heathrow has for the UK is it is an international super hub.

It's already been stated, but to be a hub, you need aircraft of all sizes really including 'small' aircraft. Heathrow actually has very few sub-100 seat planes which makes it a touch unusual by European/ North America hub standards.

I am actually of the belief a small percentage of slots for any hypothetical R3 should be reserved for domestic flights as connectivity to the regions would help give a boost to everywhere.

Still, I think it is rather unlikely we will see Heathrow R3 anytime soon if ever. Britain's lack of ability, and in many cases total unwillingness, to build has and will continue to greatly hamper Britain's economic development.

 

[camflyer]

The Elizabeth Line now and Old Oak Common in future (which will have calls from GWR and HS2 trains) will provide a very good interchange for rail journeys between Heathrow Airport and many other UK destinations. Old Oak Common will certainly be very busy but it will also have very high capacity. The Western and Southern rail links to Heathrow Airport would be useful but I assume they will only be built if Heathrow Airport agrees to fund them.

With Heathrow, improving rail links primarily benefits the airport and its users so it is reasonable that HAL funds the majority of the work. With Gatwick, improving capacity on the Brighton Mail Line benefits everyone living and working along the line so it is really more of a regional infrastructure project.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I am actually of the belief a small percentage of slots for any hypothetical R3 should be reserved for domestic flights as connectivity to the regions would help give a boost to everywhere.

I wouldn't disagree with this. There's a strong case for linking long haul slots to domestic slots, something like "if you want a 7am arrival, then you need to organise at least one return flight to Derry" and so on. There's a very strong case for also including slots for non-domestic flights to places like Jersey and Gibraltar as well.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There was a really interesting post on FlyerTalk recently about the separation between the different jets at Heathrow: https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/bri...lub/1949283-ask-staffer-127.html#post37009166

That poster's take was that wake separation is the main issue, but even two identical jets have to have radar separation of 3 nautical miles.

It's already been stated, but to be a hub, you need aircraft of all sizes really including 'small' aircraft. Heathrow actually has very few sub-100 seat planes which makes it a touch unusual by European/ North America hub standards.

Agreed, you don't see the really small stuff at Heathrow, other than Loganair I can't think of much at Heathrow below 100 seats. You don't really see things like the Embraer e-Jets. That's different to places like Schiphol.

But I'm still of the opinion that flying A319s or A220s into Heathrow is a simple waste of resource. If a link can't fill at least an A320 then, quite frankly, what is the point of running it?

I am actually of the belief a small percentage of slots for any hypothetical R3 should be reserved for domestic flights as connectivity to the regions would help give a boost to everywhere.

I think it depends on what we mean by domestic flights.

I don't think we should be expanding Heathrow to accommodate more very short domestic flights. Domestic/CTA flights on different land masses, yes- so Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, Northern Ireland, etc. Scotland? Probably. But for most of England I'd say that there should actually simply be better integration between aviation and rail, in a similar way to the link between Lufthansa and DB. Manchester passengers should, for the most part, be directed to HS2.