Subject: Dramatic news in today's Standard

Dramatic news in today’s Standard as it has got hold of documents which reveal 12 options Heathrow Airport has been looking at for new runway/airport.

John Stewart HACAN

03 May 2013

A “superhub� airport with four runways could be built in the home counties or west London under plans drawn up for Heathrow bosses.

The blueprint includes options for a huge new airport close to Maidenhead or Oxford , or doubling the number of runways at Heathrow, to handle 140  million passengers a year.

It was seized on by aviation experts as giving the first detailed insight into Heathrow’s thinking about airport expansion in the South-East.

A document called Heathrow 2025, Masterplan Options & Indicative Layouts, obtained by Aviation Week industry information service, outlines 10 options. They include plans for a four-runway airport at White Waltham in Berkshire, near Maidenhead and Bracknell, or at Haddenham in Aylesbury Vale, Buckinghamshire, about 15 miles from Oxford.

Alternatively, there is a proposal for Heathrow to have one extra runway to the east and another to the west, or four runways slightly to the west of the airport which would involve tunnelling the M25, filling in a local reservoir and using the existing terminals.

The study was commissioned by Heathrow from consultancy Mott MacDonald and also includes four different proposals for a three-runway airport — three at the existing airport and one to the west, over the M25.

Plans are also outlined for take-offs and landings on both existing runways, rather than alternating their use.

John Stewart, chairman of anti-airport expansion campaign group HACAN, called the revelations “utterly dramatic. Nobody expected Heathrow would be looking so far afield. It must mean they don’t feel at all confident of being able to win the argument about expanding the existing airport.�

Heathrow stressed it had not yet backed any of the proposals in the report, believed to have been compiled six months ago. A spokesman said: “These are early drafts of concepts developed by consultants last year. They are not designs that have been endorsed by Heathrow airport. Heathrow will be making its considered submission to the Airports Commission in July.�

Heathrow is understood to be considering at least 12 expansion options which are being whittled down.

Another proposal floated, from a group led by Concorde’s longest-serving pilot, Captain Jock Lowe, has proposed extending the two existing Heathrow runways to create four.

Daniel Moylan, the Mayor of London’s adviser on aviation, argued that the Mott MacDonald study indicated Heathrow chiefs may be “coming round� to Boris Johnson’s view that Heathrow cannot expand on its current site.

He said: “The Mayor believes that the right location for a hub airport is on the eastern side of the capital, where the scope for regeneration is greater and where space is less constrained.�

Councillor David Lyons, leader of Aylesbury Vale Green Party, called the proposal for Haddenham “absolutely mad. It’s such a far-fetched scheme to destroy a beautiful area. There would be a mass campaign (against it).�

The villages of Chearsley and Long Crendon would have to be largely removed, Aviation Week suggested.

White Waltham councillor Carwyn Cox branded the idea of a major international airport there as an “impractical solution�, which would blight green belt land and affect communities in Maidenhead, Windsor, Slough, Reading, Marlow and Henley.

===

"Alternatively, there is a proposal for Heathrow to have one extra runway to the east and another to the west, or four runways slightly to the west of the airport which would involve tunnelling the M25, filling in a local reservoir and using the existing terminals."

Sounds like it was drawn up on the back of an envelope in the pub. Going to the west, I think the Queen Mother and Wraysbury are rather important pieces of infrastructure, let alone the demolishing of the Colnbrook Industrial Estate and possibly Colnbrook itself. Then there's the the residents of Datchet and Windsor having runways the other side of their garden fences. If you go east, you'd have to demolish Cranford and parts of Hounslow.

Neill

On Fri, 3 May 2013 06:25:56 -0700 (PDT), CJB
wrote:

Subject: Dramatic news in today's Standard

Dramatic news in today’s Standard as it has got hold of documents which reveal 12 options Heathrow Airport has been looking at for new runway/airport.

John Stewart HACAN

03 May 2013

A “superhub” airport with four runways could be built in the home counties or west London under plans drawn up for Heathrow bosses.

The blueprint includes options for a huge new airport close to Maidenhead or Oxford , or doubling the number of runways at Heathrow, to handle 140??million passengers a year.

It was seized on by aviation experts as giving the first detailed insight into Heathrow’s thinking about airport expansion in the South-East.

A document called Heathrow 2025, Masterplan Options & Indicative Layouts, obtained by Aviation Week industry information service, outlines 10 options. They include plans for a four-runway airport at White Waltham in Berkshire, near Maidenhead and Bracknell, or at Haddenham in Aylesbury Vale, Buckinghamshire, about 15 miles from Oxford.

Alternatively, there is a proposal for Heathrow to have one extra runway to the east and another to the west, or four runways slightly to the west of the airport which would involve tunnelling the M25, filling in a local reservoir and using the existing terminals.

The study was commissioned by Heathrow from consultancy Mott MacDonald and also includes four different proposals for a three-runway airport — three at the existing airport and one to the west, over the M25.

Plans are also outlined for take-offs and landings on both existing runways, rather than alternating their use.

John Stewart, chairman of anti-airport expansion campaign group HACAN, called the revelations “utterly dramatic. Nobody expected Heathrow would be looking so far afield. It must mean they don’t feel at all confident of being able to win the argument about expanding the existing airport.”

Heathrow stressed it had not yet backed any of the proposals in the report, believed to have been compiled six months ago. A spokesman said: “These are early drafts of concepts developed by consultants last year. They are not designs that have been endorsed by Heathrow airport. Heathrow will be making its considered submission to the Airports Commission in July.”

Heathrow is understood to be considering at least 12 expansion options which are being whittled down.

Another proposal floated, from a group led by Concorde’s longest-serving pilot, Captain Jock Lowe, has proposed extending the two existing Heathrow runways to create four.

Daniel Moylan, the Mayor of London’s adviser on aviation, argued that the Mott MacDonald study indicated Heathrow chiefs may be “coming round” to Boris Johnson’s view that Heathrow cannot expand on its current site.

He said: “The Mayor believes that the right location for a hub airport is on the eastern side of the capital, where the scope for regeneration is greater and where space is less constrained.”

Councillor David Lyons, leader of Aylesbury Vale Green Party, called the proposal for Haddenham “absolutely mad. It’s such a far-fetched scheme to destroy a beautiful area. There would be a mass campaign (against it).”

The villages of Chearsley and Long Crendon would have to be largely removed, Aviation Week suggested.

White Waltham councillor Carwyn Cox branded the idea of a major international airport there as an “impractical solution”, which would blight green belt land and affect communities in Maidenhead, Windsor, Slough, Reading, Marlow and Henley.

Why is this dramatic news? There have been many recent discussions
here and elsewhere about how Heathrow might be expanded, given the
need for a larger London hub airport and the extreme doubts about an
all-new hub airport out in the Thames estuary.

Recliner wrote:

Why is this dramatic news? There have been many recent discussions
here and elsewhere about how Heathrow might be expanded, given the
need for a larger London hub airport and the extreme doubts about an
all-new hub airport out in the Thames estuary.

It'll also be BAA posturing given that to me the most sensible option
(expanding Stansted and closing Heathrow or at least relegating it to a
smaller operation, perhaps involving low-costs) will not exactly help their
business.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

On 2013-05-06 22:08:16 +0000, Neil Williams said:

Recliner wrote:

Why is this dramatic news? There have been many recent discussions
here and elsewhere about how Heathrow might be expanded, given the
need for a larger London hub airport and the extreme doubts about an
all-new hub airport out in the Thames estuary.

It'll also be BAA posturing given that to me the most sensible option
(expanding Stansted and closing Heathrow or at least relegating it to a
smaller operation, perhaps involving low-costs) will not exactly help their
business.

Neil

I'd be interested to hear how you consider that expanding Stansted is
the best option, given that several inquiries over several decades have
failed to come to that conclusion, and that Stansted itself is now
attracting only 80% of the business it did just a few years back..

Ken Wheatley wrote:
On 2013-05-06 22:08:16 +0000, Neil Williams said:

Recliner wrote:
Why is this dramatic news? There have been many recent discussions
here and elsewhere about how Heathrow might be expanded, given the
need for a larger London hub airport and the extreme doubts about an
all-new hub airport out in the Thames estuary.
It'll also be BAA posturing given that to me the most sensible option
(expanding Stansted and closing Heathrow or at least relegating it to a
smaller operation, perhaps involving low-costs) will not exactly help their
business.
Neil

I'd be interested to hear how you consider that expanding Stansted is the
best option, given that several inquiries over several decades have
failed to come to that conclusion, and that Stansted itself is now
attracting only 80% of the business it did just a few years back..

Exactly. Heathrow is oversubscribed, while Stansted struggles for business.
The customers want more capacity at Heathrow area, not east or northeast of
London. The operator would prefer the cheaper, simpler third runway north
of the current pair, but I think a more ambitious expansion to four is a
better long term strategy.

Incidentally, I've had occasion to pass through Beijing's busy Capital
airport a couple of times in the last ten days, and it's interesting to see
how much worse it is than Heathrow, despite its grand turtle-and-dragon
Foster-designed Terminal 3, mixed mode operation on three runways: more
walking, worse signage, much longer delays to take off, only bus links
between terminals. And the free wi-fi in the business lounges is behind the
Great Firewall, so lots of web sites are blocked. You also have to register
with your passport to use the wi-fi. But at least it does have wi-fi and
business lounges, unlike Pyongyang airport which instead sports a
collection of parked elderly Russian planes.

I also prefer the Rogers' Heathrow T5 to his Barajas T4, though MAD is less
congested than LHR. The need to squash Heathrow's T5 into a limited space
has made it more efficient than the indulgent, sprawling
also-British-designed contemporaries in Beijing and Madrid.

Recliner wrote:

Exactly. Heathrow is oversubscribed, while Stansted struggles for business.
The customers want more capacity at Heathrow area, not east or northeast of
London.

No, they want extra capacity at the main London airport (with lots of
airlines and passengers) which happens to be Heathrow. If Heathrow closed,
it wouldn't be any more.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy, not an overriding desire to visit Slough
on holiday.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

Neil Williams wrote:
Recliner wrote:

Exactly. Heathrow is oversubscribed, while Stansted struggles for business.
The customers want more capacity at Heathrow area, not east or northeast of
London.

No, they want extra capacity at the main London airport (with lots of
airlines and passengers) which happens to be Heathrow. If Heathrow closed,
it wouldn't be any more.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy, not an overriding desire to visit Slough
on holiday.

Businesses (including company head offices, caterers, hotels, air freight
companies, airline offices, people who need to travel a lot, etc) have
located around Heathrow, and they want the main London hub to remain in the
area. It also has much better transport links than other London airports.

You haven't explained why you believe "the most sensible option" is
"expanding Stansted and closing Heathrow or at least relegating it to a
smaller operation." Why and how would that be better than the present
situation?

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Neil Williams wrote:
Recliner wrote:

Exactly. Heathrow is oversubscribed, while Stansted struggles for
business.
The customers want more capacity at Heathrow area, not east or northeast
of
London.

No, they want extra capacity at the main London airport (with lots of
airlines and passengers) which happens to be Heathrow. If Heathrow
closed,
it wouldn't be any more.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy, not an overriding desire to visit Slough
on holiday.

Businesses (including company head offices, caterers, hotels, air freight
companies, airline offices, people who need to travel a lot, etc) have
located around Heathrow, and they want the main London hub to remain in
the
area.

This is a tiny percentage of the total demand for air travel.

There are just as many businesses at other locations around the country who
would quite happily have the airport somewhere else.

I don't think that we should be lead by (random) Company X saying "we must
have the main airport 10 minutes away". That's a silly way to make a
decision

It also has much better transport links than other London airports.

Only because it's the closest, but it is that very closeness that makes it
the most unsuitable for expansion.

tim