Airport expansions

[Peter Wilde]

Exactly that. Can you explain why a plane that takes off heavier than it would otherwise have been (due to fuel taken on as a taxiing-delays contingency, then not needed) does not burn more fuel in the rest of the flight, simply by being heavier throughout the climb and cruise?

 

[gabrielhj07]

Exactly that. Can you explain why a plane that takes off heavier than it would otherwise have been (due to fuel taken on as a taxiing-delays contingency, then not needed) does not burn more fuel in the rest of the flight, simply by being heavier throughout the climb and cruise?

Well not using it is the crux then. Airports are quite good at estimating taxi times, but in any case the penalty wouldn't even be a rounding error, especially in the context of long-haul flights.

 

[Tetchytyke]

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

Mad isn't it, actual planning experts can recommend that a project be rejected yet Heidi Alexander- a woman who has never had a proper job outside politics, but does have a BA in Geography- can just trample over everything.

I think this sums up everything that's wrong with the UK.

Airports are quite good at estimating taxi times, but in any case the penalty wouldn't even be a rounding error, especially in the context of long-haul flights.

The issue is more with short haul flights.

Found via google, this is quite an interesting article on fuel burn in taxi: https://www.oag.com/blog/which-part-flight-uses-most-fuel

That study showed that on a London-Paris flight, 17% of the total fuel burn was from taxiing. For a London-Dubai flight, it was only
2% of the total fuel burn. This makes sense: for a flight to Paris, the plane will be taxiing at Heathrow for far longer than it will actually be in the sky. For a flight to Dubai, the opposite. For long haul extra fuel would be a rounding error, but not so much for short haul. Most flights out of Heathrow are short haul.

Of course, "build more runways" is only one way of solving this issue. Spinning up a jet engine and burning loads of aviation fuel for taxiing is exceptionally inefficient. For short haul aircraft, other forms of ground propulsion would make much more sense.

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.

There are plenty of mega-hubs in the US, depends which airline you go with. Virgin/Delta at Atlanta being just one example.

As for whether it would be sustainable, Virgin have just increased Manchester-Atlanta to x6 weekly (from x5 weekly) but have reduced Manchester-JFK to x4 weekly (from x5 weekly). So there's clearly a market.

 

[Ted633]

Of course, "build more runways" is only one way of solving this issue. Spinning up a jet engine and burning loads of aviation fuel for taxiing is exceptionally inefficient. For short haul aircraft, other forms of ground propulsion would make much more sense.


.

There have been developments of electric motors installed on the landing gear of 737 & A320 aircraft. Biggest issue I expect is the extra weight that had to be carried. Not a huge amount of info about, but the wiki page has some details.

EGTS - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[bspahh]

There have been developments of electric motors installed on the landing gear of 737 & A320 aircraft. Biggest issue I expect is the extra weight that had to be carried. Not a huge amount of info about, but the wiki page has some details.

EGTS - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You just need some elevator cars

 

[gabrielhj07]

That study showed that on a London-Paris flight, 17% of the total fuel burn was from taxiing. For a London-Dubai flight, it was only
2% of the total fuel burn. This makes sense: for a flight to Paris, the plane will be taxiing at Heathrow for far longer than it will actually be in the sky. For a flight to Dubai, the opposite. For long haul extra fuel would be a rounding error, but not so much for short haul. Most flights out of Heathrow are short haul.

Yes taxiing around is heroically inefficient for jet engines.

 

[Peter Wilde]

There was a suggestion a few years ago that airports with lots of taxi time should develop a fleet of bidirectional, higher speed battery electric pushback tractors, so planes would only start their jets when nearing the front of the takeoff queue. Nice idea, but do the airports care about this stuff?

 

[Magdalia]

Stansted Airport planning application has been approved by Uttlesford District Council see here:

London Stansted Airport's passenger expansion plan approved

A district council votes to increase the airport's annual passenger numbers to 51 million.

www.bbc.co.uk

London Stansted Airport could become the UK's second busiest airport after councillors agreed to increase its annual passenger numbers to 51 million.
There is no plan to build a second runway or exceed the airport's limit of 274,000 flights a year, but the site's owner Manchester Airports Group wants to accommodate larger aeroplanes.
Uttlesford District Council's Planning Committee ruled in favour of the application earlier.
The airport, which serves 40 countries, has already started work on a £1.1bn expansion approved by the government in 2023.
The owner's latest plan sought to increase passenger capacity at the airport to between 48 and 51 million people per year by 2040, a rise from the existing cap of 43 million.

 

[camflyer]

Stansted Airport planning application has been approved by Uttlesford District Council see here:

London Stansted Airport's passenger expansion plan approved

A district council votes to increase the airport's annual passenger numbers to 51 million.

www.bbc.co.uk

Stansted is my nearest airport but I try to avoid it as much as possible and prefer to do down to Heathrow or Gatwick. Stansted at 6am has to be one of the most soul destroying places in the country.

Since they are going for larger planes rather than more flights that suggests they will be trying for more routes to the ME hubs. If so then that will mean more premium/business passengers for whom the airport currently have very poor facilities for

 

[Tetchytyke]

here was a suggestion a few years ago that airports with lots of taxi time should develop a fleet of bidirectional, higher speed battery electric pushback tractors, so planes would only start their jets when nearing the front of the takeoff queue. Nice idea, but do the airports care about this stuff?

Airlines will only care if it saves them money, airports won't care unless it becomes a planning condition.

"Build more runways" doesn't always cut taxi time either. The Polderbaan at Schiphol being a case in point.

 

[TravelDream]

Since they are going for larger planes rather than more flights that suggests they will be trying for more routes to the ME hubs. If so then that will mean more premium/business passengers for whom the airport currently have very poor facilities for

Stansted, like most non-prime airports, would really like a US route as well as further Middle East/ Asian expansion.
It's a very wealthy part of the country and it always surprises me than no airline makes a go of, say, Stansted to New York.
But the US seems difficult for airlines to make work from regional English airports.
Another middle eastern carrier seems basically inevitable at some point.
Qatar is flying to Doha from Heathrow about ten times per day. Ten! That's an awful lot of capacity. That's in addition to the two BA flights from Heathrow (which QR codeshare on) and the two Qatar fly from Gatwick. Eventually there will come a point they will see it's better for them to expand elsewhere around London.
Emirates flies to Dubai around (a mere) eight times per day from Heathrow, three from Gatwick and two Stansted. I wouldn't be surprised to see Stansted match Gatwick's schedule allowing Stansted to have flights for their three main hub banks.
The big Asian airlines seem happy to use Gatwick as their second option for the moment - but that might change.

But what is forgotten is that even with current airlines/ routes, expansion is needed.
Jet2 is moving from 737-800 (189 seats) to eventually be all A321NEOs (232 seats) airline. That's up 23%.
Ryanair is going from only 737-800 (189 seats)/ Max-8s (197 seats) to also having Max-10s (228 seats). That's a 21%/16% increase in seats - though they will be keeping the newer 800s and the Max-8s for a long time yet so obviously the Stansted fleet will be a mix.

 

[camflyer]

Stansted, like most non-prime airports, would really like a US route as well as further Middle East/ Asian expansion.
It's a very wealthy part of the country and it always surprises me than no airline makes a go of, say, Stansted to New York.
But the US seems difficult for airlines to make work from regional English airports.
Another middle eastern carrier seems basically inevitable at some point.
Qatar is flying to Doha from Heathrow about ten times per day. Ten! That's an awful lot of capacity. That's in addition to the two BA flights from Heathrow (which QR codeshare on) and the two Qatar fly from Gatwick. Eventually there will come a point they will see it's better for them to expand elsewhere around London.
Emirates flies to Dubai around (a mere) eight times per day from Heathrow, three from Gatwick and two Stansted. I wouldn't be surprised to see Stansted match Gatwick's schedule allowing Stansted to have flights for their three main hub banks.
The big Asian airlines seem happy to use Gatwick as their second option for the moment - but that might change.

I would certainly like to see a Qatar service from STN to give Emirates some competition and provide a One World presence. I can see that attracting a lot of OW status passengers from the northern home counties for flights "east of Suez" and down under.

The US market is a lot harder as people prefer direct point to point flights as connecting in the US is such a pain. The drive around the M25 is worth it to avoid changing in JFK, Chicago or DFW.

 

[Magdalia]

This BBC News item is mainly about people bumping into each other at Heathrow, but also includes some interesting comments about airport expansion:

Heathrow not crowded but people walk in 'wrong place', says boss

Chief executive Thomas Woldbye says Europeans and Brits keep "crashing into each other" because they walk on different sides.

www.bbc.co.uk

Heathrow Airport's Terminal 5 is not crowded — people are just walking in the "wrong place", the airport's boss has said.

Thomas Woldbye told an industry event "all the British people keep to the left and all the Europeans keep to the right", making the terminal feel crowded "when it's not actually".

Heathrow is the UK's busiest airport, but its plans to build third runway have faced push-back from climate campaigners and locals despite government support.
Woldbye told the Aviation Club UK event that, even though the government backed the expansion, he was "not sure of anything".
"We have a very solid description of how that looks and what we're going to build.
"What we don't have is necessary modernisation of airspace.
"We don't have a long-term regulation which is clear in terms of building a business case," he said.
He added that "lots of stuff has to be done this year in order to enable the actual commencement of building".

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Heathrow Airport's Terminal 5 is not crowded — people are just walking in the "wrong place", the airport's boss has said.

Thomas Woldbye told an industry event "all the British people keep to the left and all the Europeans keep to the right", making the terminal feel crowded "when it's not actually".

Has it not occurred to him to put up a load of "keep left" signs like much of the London Underground and quite a few main line station have? Maybe make them a bit more prominent than they are on the railway, though...

 

[Cloud Strife]

Stansted is my nearest airport but I try to avoid it as much as possible and prefer to do down to Heathrow or Gatwick. Stansted at 6am has to be one of the most soul destroying places in the country.

Stansted is soul destroying at 6am because of the point blank idiotic arrangements there. There's really absolutely no reason why Stansted couldn't allow people through security from 10pm onwards if they have a flight the next day, and twilight bag drop would go a long way to making it a more civilised place in the morning too.

This is a MAG issue though, because the same thing applies in Manchester. They have a very strange policy to only let people through security 3-4 hours before departure, even though people are quite willing to go through earlier and to spend money in Manchester. In comparison, the ME airports or others like Singapore are more than happy for you to go through security hours in advance, and so they never have the "Stansted Zombie" problem. In Singapore at least, they're quite happy for travellers to go through security even 24 hours in advance!

Since they are going for larger planes rather than more flights that suggests they will be trying for more routes to the ME hubs. If so then that will mean more premium/business passengers for whom the airport currently have very poor facilities for

They really should finally build Sat 4 and then transform Sat 1 into a premium/long haul pier. There's no reason not to do it now, especially with domestic arrivals being relocated away from Sat 2.

 

[Tetchytyke]

This BBC News item is mainly about people bumping into each other at Heathrow

Terminal 5 feels crowded because everyone gets funnelled along the narrow shopping arcade. That's a deliberate decision by Heathrow and you can expand things as much as you want, you'll still be funnelled through a shopping arcade.

 

[sh24]

Terminal 5 feels crowded because everyone gets funnelled along the narrow shopping arcade. That's a deliberate decision by Heathrow and you can expand things as much as you want, you'll still be funnelled through a shopping arcade.

...and some very bad gate design e.g. trying to board a full A380 through a gate area best suited for an A319. In this case it was about saving money by shrinking the passenger space in T5B and C.

 

[John R]

Terminal 5 feels crowded because everyone gets funnelled along the narrow shopping arcade. That's a deliberate decision by Heathrow and you can expand things as much as you want, you'll still be funnelled through a shopping arcade.

I never see anyone in those "high end" shops, so do wonder whether they are really serving a useful purpose in comparison to more mass market retailers or, perish the thought, some more circulation and seating space for the 99% of passengers who don't use them.

 

[sh24]

I never see anyone in those "high end" shops, so do wonder whether they are really serving a useful purpose in comparison to more mass market retailers or, perish the thought, some more circulation and seating space for the 99% of passengers who don't use them.

There is no way HAL or any other airport would give space to retailers that don't perform. If they are there, they are making a lot of money for the airport and either subsidising mass market travellers/lining the pockets of evil PE owners depending on your level of cynicism.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I never see anyone in those "high end" shops, so do wonder whether they are really serving a useful purpose

Hermes handbags are expensive. Almost as expensive as a bottle of Coke Zero and a bag of Maltesers from WH Smith.

I'm sure 95% of people have no intention of dropping £5,000 on a handbag, but it only takes a few people to do it and you've made a lot of money. If these shops weren't making money then they'd not be paying the rents to HAL.

 

[Cross City]

Hermes handbags are expensive. Almost as expensive as a bottle of Coke Zero and a bag of Maltesers from WH Smith.

I'm sure 95% of people have no intention of dropping £5,000 on a handbag, but it only takes a few people to do it and you've made a lot of money. If these shops weren't making money then they'd not be paying the rents to HAL.

A lot of luxury shops in airports are loss leaders for the brands. They're happy to pay the extortionate airport rent as it's great advertising to a captive audience, most of which won't get to see your product in the flesh very often. Anything they do sell is a total bonus.

That being said, if you are in the market for something like a luxury watch, taking your chances and buying them at an airport is a decent idea. Often they have a few things in stock which at regular stores they'd put you on a months-long waiting list for. Rolex is a particular stickler for this kind of thing.

 

[camflyer]

Hermes handbags are expensive. Almost as expensive as a bottle of Coke Zero and a bag of Maltesers from WH Smith.

I'm sure 95% of people have no intention of dropping £5,000 on a handbag, but it only takes a few people to do it and you've made a lot of money. If these shops weren't making money then they'd not be paying the rents to HAL.

The economics of luxury shops in airports is quite interesting

They will make some sales as airports have a higher concentration of wealthy people than a typical shopping mall but they also help their marketing and brand awareness. A luxury shop may only sell a few expensive items per day but WH Smiths has to sell a vast amount of sweets to have the same turnover.

 

[Cloud Strife]

A lot of luxury shops in airports are loss leaders for the brands. They're happy to pay the extortionate airport rent as it's great advertising to a captive audience, most of which won't get to see your product in the flesh very often. Anything they do sell is a total bonus.

From what I understand, a lot of these shops are operating on the basis of people collecting items that they've previously ordered. For instance, if you want to buy a luxury handbag, you might order several of them to be available in the airport for you to browse between flights. This is why the ending of the VAT refund scheme for tourists was/is so problematic, because a lot of people were flying through Heathrow with the specific intention of loading up on luxury items.

And yes, they're also a great advert. Nothing says luxury brand quite like a mostly empty boutique in a prime retail airport location, staffed by people with impeccable manners and discretion.

 

[bspahh]

From what I understand, a lot of these shops are operating on the basis of people collecting items that they've previously ordered. For instance, if you want to buy a luxury handbag, you might order several of them to be available in the airport for you to browse between flights. This is why the ending of the VAT refund scheme for tourists was/is so problematic, because a lot of people were flying through Heathrow with the specific intention of loading up on luxury items.

And yes, they're also a great advert. Nothing says luxury brand quite like a mostly empty boutique in a prime retail airport location, staffed by people with impeccable manners and discretion.

An airport shop is less likely to be affected by shoplifting and ram raiding than one on a High Street.

 

[Snow1964]

Seems to be a number of news articles about Heathrow expansion today, but cannot find an actual article by Heathrow Airport. Possibly something factual is imminent and some news outlets have advance info

Example this news (will edit with quotes and factual link if something comes out)

A New Era for Travel: Heathrow’s Massive Overhaul Focused on Transparency, Efficiency, and Enhanced Service - Travel And Tour World

Heathrow’s £33 billion expansion project promises more competition and travel options, backed by real-time expert oversight, driving UK’s aviation future.

www.travelandtourworld.com

Also seems to be a Parliamentary submission about Heathrow airport pollution (might be a timing fluke), but suggests it is hot topic

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/163322/pdf/

 

[och aye]

Terminal 5 feels crowded because everyone gets funnelled along the narrow shopping arcade. That's a deliberate decision by Heathrow and you can expand things as much as you want, you'll still be funnelled through a shopping arcade.

Absolutely. At Edinburgh you have no choice, but to walk through the World Duty Free shop after clearing security!

 

[John R]

Absolutely. At Edinburgh you have no choice, but to walk through the World Duty Free shop after clearing security!

That’s fairly standard now in many airports.

 

[route101]

Absolutely. At Edinburgh you have no choice, but to walk through the World Duty Free shop after clearing security!

Except before 4am, before it opens.

 

[camflyer]

That’s fairly standard now in many airports.

There is a handy shortcut at Gatwick South terminal. Just follow the signs to the lounges after security which bypasses the duty free area.

 

[sh24]

There is a handy shortcut at Stansted South terminal. Just follow the signs to the lounges after security which bypasses the duty free area.

Similarly at Gatwick South - doorway to the left just after Fastrack security takes you the mezzanine level avoiding duty free.

But, yes, the duty free rat run is a global phenomenon