Airport expansions

[nlogax]

No idea why it has come out now, but maybe recent Gatwick expansion go ahead has stirred it into action.

Whatever the reason I'm glad they did and it does demonstrate a minimally disruptive approach. It's encouraging to see separate slip roads from Thorney interchange all the way down through the tunnels to the T5 junction which may actually improve traffic flow in the area.

A simple overnight job to do the realignment though? That is a very wide section of motorway. I could imagine multiple nights, with one carriageway per night starting from the westbound side.

 

[AlastairFraser]

There’s a difference netween an airline offering such tickets for sale, and passenges buying them!

There are a few passengers who do buy tickets with an airport change in London, but I’d be surprised if those connecting between Gatwick and Heathrow made up more than 0.05% of those using Heathrow. It’s essentially irrelevant.

Fair enough, if you believe that! I've seen it mentioned a few times and BA seems to be satisfied with it as an option.

That's the $100,000 question isn't it.

My opinion is very much that if Amsterdam or Frankfurt want the pollution that comes with an expanding airport then they are welcome to it.

I doubt Amsterdam does, the new slot system will cap growth significantly.
Frankfurt seems more likely and is actually better located for feeder flights from a lot of continental Europe anyway.

 

[Shrop]

I'm writing this from abroad so my apologies if I've missed something relevant. My point is, our flight was the third time this year that we've sat on the tarmac waiting for around an hour waiting to depart, due to "Air traffic congestion ahead". This was not on the ground, but in the skies within the first few hundred miles around London.
My question is, how will a third runway at Heathrow help this? Won't it simply risk adding to delays and even a safety compromise, as operators scramble to squeeze more flights into space that simply isn't there with adequate safety margins?

 

[Cross City]

I'm writing this from abroad so my apologies if I've missed something relevant. My point is, our flight was the third time this year that we've sat on the tarmac waiting for around an hour waiting to depart, due to "Air traffic congestion ahead". This was not on the ground, but in the skies within the first few hundred miles around London.
My question is, how will a third runway at Heathrow help this? Won't it simply risk adding to delays and even a safety compromise, as operators scramble to squeeze more flights into space that simply isn't there with adequate safety margins?

Because currently planes have to be stacked waiting to land. More runways = more landings = clearing the airspace quicker.

 

[Shrop]

Because currently planes have to be stacked waiting to land. More runways = more landings = clearing the airspace quicker.

I don't believe its as simple as that. Runways aren't just used to take planes out of the skies, they put them into the skies too.

 

[Cross City]

I don't believe its as simple as that. Runways aren't just used to take planes out of the skies, they put them into the skies too.

Departure tracks get planes out of the area higher and faster than arrival routes.

 

[Snow1964]

I'm writing this from abroad so my apologies if I've missed something relevant. My point is, our flight was the third time this year that we've sat on the tarmac waiting for around an hour waiting to depart, due to "Air traffic congestion ahead". This was not on the ground, but in the skies within the first few hundred miles around London.
My question is, how will a third runway at Heathrow help this? Won't it simply risk adding to delays and even a safety compromise, as operators scramble to squeeze more flights into space that simply isn't there with adequate safety margins?

Depends where you waited before take off. Not uncommon for US departures if the jet stream is strong as it means flight duration might be hour less.

Heathrow has a curfew, and planes cannot land too early, and sometimes both runways are used for landings early in the morning, to help clear those stacking (a concept that is environmentally poor as it is using fuel to just fly around in circles). Additional runways are not the problem, what is a problem is over-scheduling a runway (allocating too many movements so negligible spare time) which UK has done, so that any plane affected by wind or other delays that doesn't arrive exactly at its scheduled time has to be queued until it can be slotted in to a landing pattern. Contrast this with less busy airports where can usually just arrive and depart without waiting as each runway has lots of unallocated time that can be used when delayed or early.

Heathrow also often has queues to depart, it is not uncommon to see lots of aircraft with engines running (and burning fuel) sitting at the taxiway holds waiting for runway space, sometimes for 10-40 minutes. More runways (providing not scheduled so intensively) would help this wasted emissions. The take off delay scenario (and it is often not understood by environmentalists objecting to extra take off runways) is doubly bad, because if got to load an excess of say 30 minutes of fuel as extra contingency to allow for take off delays, then plane is heavier, therefore burns more fuel and pollutes more for whole journey.
.

 

[Shrop]

Depends where you waited before take off. Not uncommon for US departures if the jet stream is strong as it means flight duration might be hour less.

Heathrow has a curfew, and planes cannot land too early, and sometimes both runways are used for landings early in the morning, to help clear those stacking (a concept that is environmentally poor as it is using fuel to just fly around in circles). Additional runways are not the problem, what is a problem is over-scheduling a runway (allocating too many movements so negligible spare time) which UK has done, so that any plane affected by wind or other delays that doesn't arrive exactly at its scheduled time has to be queued until it can be slotted in to a landing pattern. Contrast this with less busy airports where can usually just arrive and depart without waiting as each runway has lots of unallocated time that can be used when delayed or early.

Heathrow also often has queues to depart, it is not uncommon to see lots of aircraft with engines running (and burning fuel) sitting at the taxiway holds waiting for runway space, sometimes for 10-40 minutes. More runways (providing not scheduled so intensively) would help this wasted emissions. The take off delay scenario (and it is often not understood by environmentalists objecting to extra take off runways) is doubly bad, because if got to load an excess of say 30 minutes of fuel as extra contingency to allow for take off delays, then plane is heavier, therefore burns more fuel and pollutes more for whole journey.
.

You make some good points which I don't dispute, but I still think its not as simple as just increasing space on the ground. The skies ARE crowded, not just around airports, they're crowded along air corridors too. A third runway at Heathrow might well improve some aspects, but what it won't achieve is as much of a relief to air traffic congestion as many would have us believe.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm writing this from abroad so my apologies if I've missed something relevant. My point is, our flight was the third time this year that we've sat on the tarmac waiting for around an hour waiting to depart, due to "Air traffic congestion ahead". This was not on the ground, but in the skies within the first few hundred miles around London.
My question is, how will a third runway at Heathrow help this? Won't it simply risk adding to delays and even a safety compromise, as operators scramble to squeeze more flights into space that simply isn't there with adequate safety margins?

Most likely it was either awaiting time for your landing slot, or the French ATC engaging in one of their regular bouts of grumpiness. Both delayed two family members this week.

 

[Shrop]

Most likely it was either awaiting time for your landing slot, or the French ATC engaging in one of their regular bouts of grumpiness. Both delayed two family members this week.

Indeed, French grumpiness has a lot to account for. Trouble is, we could be feeding it

 

[gabrielhj07]

The take off delay scenario (and it is often not understood by environmentalists objecting to extra take off runways) is doubly bad, because if got to load an excess of say 30 minutes of fuel as extra contingency to allow for take off delays, then plane is heavier, therefore burns more fuel and pollutes more for whole journey.

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

 

[camflyer]

Because currently planes have to be stacked waiting to land. More runways = more landings = clearing the airspace quicker.

I can't think of an airport in the world which uses stacking as much as Heathrow (and other London airports aren't much better)

A third runway should help this (and reduce noise pollution over London) but it will be down to regulators to make sure that LHR doesn't just use the extra capacity to cram in as many flights as possible so that we would be soon back to where we are now.

 

[Bald Rick]

A third runway should help this (and reduce noise pollution over London)

It will certainly help stackimg, but I don’t see how that reduces noise pollution over London. It might reduce noise pollition over Hemel / Chesham etc (Bovingdon hold) and other areas where the stacks are, but they are not over London. As an aside, the noise from aircraft in the stacks is minimal. I say this from oersonal experience - I was underneath the Bovingdon hold this morning, saw several ‘heavies’ in the hold, and couldn’t hear a thing from them.

 

[PedroHav]

I can't think of an airport in the world which uses stacking as much as Heathrow (and other London airports aren't much better)

Please remember that there are only 2 runways at Heathrow. Most other busy airports have at least 4 and sometimes 6.

With regards to holding point delays GMP (ground movement planner) tries to restrict start ups to reduce this and save fuel etc. This is then called an ATC restriction but is entirely due to the number of aircraft trying to depart at the same time.

 

[Tetchytyke]

A third runway should help this (and reduce noise pollution over London)

It might reduce noise pollition over Hemel / Chesham etc (Bovingdon hold) and other areas where the stacks are, but they are not over London.

The noise in London is from the aircraft on descent. More runway means more aircraft.

I lived in Muswell Hill and the noise was noticeable.

I also lived in Hemel Hempstead, basically under the Bovingdon stack, and the noise was not noticeable. The stacks are a few thousand feet up and you don’t get the noise.

 

[TravelDream]

It's still astounding that Heathrow's R3 was proposed decades ago and we are no closer to an operation runway today than we were back then.

The noise in London is from the aircraft on descent. More runway means more aircraft.

More runways could equal fewer planes per runway which would equal less holding/ queuing which would equal less noise.

And more aircraft =/= more noise. Modern planes are much quieter than previous generation aircraft.

 

[Bald Rick]

The noise in London is from the aircraft on descent. More runway means more aircraft.

I lived in Muswell Hill and the noise was noticeable.

I also lived in Hemel Hempstead, basically under the Bovingdon stack, and the noise was not noticeable. The stacks are a few thousand feet up and you don’t get the noise.

I was agreeing with you - see my comments about Bovingdon hold

 

[Tetchytyke]

I was agreeing with you - see my comments about Bovingdon hold

Sorry, yes, I was agreeing with you too!

The noise is as they come in low over the city to land.

 

[FinsburyPark]

The Green Party has issued a thoughtful comment in response to this news.

Greens respond to possible airport expansions - Green Party

Responding to the news that Rachel Reeves is expected to give the go-ahead to a series of airport expansions across the UK, Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, Sian Berry, said: “We must ask who these decisions would be made for and why. Whose advice is the Government listening to, when...

greenparty.org.uk

One alternative to airport expansion is to make better use of existing capacity for more longer distance international/intercontinental flights by restricting short distance flights where surface transport provides a reasonable alternative, as has been done in France. For London Heathrow, flights could be prohibited to destinations that have a regular direct train service from central London at least every 2 hours and taking less than 5 hours. If this was implemented, Brussels, Edinburgh, Glasgow (Abbotsinch), Manchester, Newcastle and Paris (Charles de Gaulle/Orly) would no longer be served, freeing up a significant number of slots for longer distance flights.

Often times this will not work.

The price of rail travel is far too high compared to air travel.

Someone flew from Manchester with a connection in Amsterdam to London just to prove a point, and docemented it on youtube.

I know not everyone has the time based resource to fly from UK to UK with a conncetion in Europe.

I think what makes trains work this way in France is from what I hear the train from Paris to Nice is likely to compete well on price in many cases, but not all to flights from Paris to Nice, for example.

In the UK you'd have to book an advance fare some months in advance to have a chance of being price competitive with the aviation sector.

This is an area in which France excells over the UK

 

[Acfb]

Often times this will not work.

The price of rail travel is far too high compared to air travel.

Someone flew from Manchester with a connection in Amsterdam to London just to prove a point, and docemented it on youtube.

I know not everyone has the time based resource to fly from UK to UK with a conncetion in Europe.

I think what makes trains work this way in France is from what I hear the train from Paris to Nice is likely to compete well on price in many cases, but not all to flights from Paris to Nice, for example.

In the UK you'd have to book an advance fare some months in advance to have a chance of being price competitive with the aviation sector.

This is an area in which France excells over the UK

You could ban O&D to Edinburgh/Glasgow to London I think, at least to Heathrow&City but still allow connections. I don't know if there is the capacity on LNER/Avanti for all those business passengers switching across though but that could help yields for them maybe?

I think Heathrow absolutely does need a third runway (just for the massive international O&D) even a pretty short one but I'm 100% opposed to Easyjet getting slots there.


I think the green/anti aviation lobby has shot itself in the foot though by taking a more realistic view on aviation and trying to get better public transport to medium sized and large airports then you can close all the basket case ones.

 

[gabrielhj07]

You could ban O&D to Edinburgh/Glasgow to London I think, at least to Heathrow&City but still allow connections. I don't know if there is the capacity on LNER/Avanti for all those business passengers switching across though but that could help yields for them maybe?

Yes, our intercity trains are famously empty.

 

[Topological]

You could ban O&D to Edinburgh/Glasgow to London I think, at least to Heathrow&City but still allow connections. I don't know if there is the capacity on LNER/Avanti for all those business passengers switching across though but that could help yields for them maybe?

I think Heathrow absolutely does need a third runway (just for the massive international O&D) even a pretty short one but I'm 100% opposed to Easyjet getting slots there.


I think the green/anti aviation lobby has shot itself in the foot though by taking a more realistic view on aviation and trying to get better public transport to medium sized and large airports then you can close all the basket case ones.

I still think they should have built Heathrow HS2 and then allowed codeshare to remove BA from Manchester/Glasgow/Edinburgh. Presuming plane to train would be almost as fast as plane to plane then this could have worked.

Likewise, if GWR was running into Heathrow.

That said, Old Oak Common is almost there if the terminal to OOC transfer is smooth. It does add an extra connection relative to a Heathrow station though.

As well as trying to focus on airports that can be connected, it is also worth looking at how you can get flights landing at times when there are still trains. Late night arrivals and the early departures are not well suited to greener transport options.

 

[TrackWatch]

Utterly stupid decision. Heathrow constantly bangs on about how making Heathrow bigger will grow the UK's economy. But given that c.35% of passengers going through Heathrow are actually connecting to somewhere else and therefore don't actually spend any money in the UK, I fail to see how the sums stack up.

Good for the Saudi and Qatari governments who own Heathrow though. So of course the useless Reeves will give it the green light.

But that says that 65% of passengers into LHR will be O&D passengers which is a pretty significant number.....some 52 million and that's still the largest passenger flow of any UK airport. 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?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Is there any scope of Stansted taking more transatlantic services to service the demand at Cambridge?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Nov 2025 ==

I still think they should have built Heathrow HS2 and then allowed codeshare to remove BA from Manchester/Glasgow/Edinburgh. Presuming plane to train would be almost as fast as plane to plane then this could have worked.

Likewise, if GWR was running into Heathrow.

That said, Old Oak Common is almost there if the terminal to OOC transfer is smooth. It does add an extra connection relative to a Heathrow station though.

As well as trying to focus on airports that can be connected, it is also worth looking at how you can get flights landing at times when there are still trains. Late night arrivals and the early departures are not well suited to greener transport options.

I know right. Completely self-destructive not even futureproofing the area for a future junction there.

 

[camflyer]

Is there any scope of Stansted taking more transatlantic services to service the demand at Cambridge?

Several airlines have tried before to do transatlantic service but haven't got it to work

Heathrow is attractive because of the connection options is provides.

BA alone serves over 25 US cities from Heathrow and around 100 short haul destinations. That's a lot of possible routes.

The Emirates service from Stansted to Dubai works as it is connecting into a mega-hub. There really isn't an equivalent in the States.

 

[TrackWatch]

Several airlines have tried before to do transatlantic service but haven't got it to work

Heathrow is attractive because of the connection options is provides.

BA alone serves over 25 US cities from Heathrow and around 100 short haul destinations. That's a lot of possible routes.

The Emirates service from Stansted to Dubai works as it is connecting into a mega-hub. There really isn't an equivalent in the States.

Chicago, Minneapolis/St Paul and Dallas are all mega hubs in the USA. Chicago has the benefit of being a huge hub for both AA and UA.

 

[camflyer]

Chicago, Minneapolis/St Paul and Dallas are all mega hubs in the USA. Chicago has the benefit of being a huge hub for both AA and UA.

But why would someone from Cambridge fly on AA/UA from Stansted to Chicago for a connection when they could fly direct from Heathrow?

There is huge amount of travel between the Cambridge area and Boston due to the business, research and academic links (I've done it myself lots of times) with a lot of tech companies having offices in both but I can't see a STN-BOS service being viable when there are several flights a day just around the M25 at Heathrow.

 

[Acfb]

Chicago, Minneapolis/St Paul and Dallas are all mega hubs in the USA. Chicago has the benefit of being a huge hub for both AA and UA.

Denver counts as a megahub too. It's arguably even United's largest hub depending on how you measure it.

Heathrow is somewhat unique internationally though as the Origin and Destination (O&D) count is so massive so could survive just on O&D even if they'd have to cut some secondary European routes in that scenario.

Heathrow mainly scores on frequencies to American destinations and large destinations such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Mumbai, Delhi even if it doesn't quite have the range of destinations that Frankfurt and Istanbul have.

 

[FinsburyPark]

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?

 

[pug1]

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?

Nothing has changed, this would all form part of an extensive risk assessment, the CAA would not permit it if it was a significant safety concern. Why do you think it’s unsafe?