Back to Squawk list
  • 14

Report backs third Heathrow runway

提交時間:
 
The Airports Commission has backed a third Heathrow runway, saying it will add £147bn in economic growth and 70,000 jobs by 2050. It would also connect Britain to 40 new destinations. (www.bbc.co.uk) 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


GSC2012
The report also has a not so subtle hint that the result will be a second runway at Gatwick.
andyc852
Preacher1. Hope you are doing well. Please tell me where I can get more detail on the 2/3 capacity issue. This looks like another LAX issue where the airport has outgrown it's functionality and with 5 terminals is a huge pain to navigate (for PAX) Plus the prevailing flight path goes right over the city of London
preacher1
preacher1 1
I'm doing better. On the 2/3 thing, it is basically 11-7 but here is the exact as published in Wiki: Night-time flights at Heathrow are subject to restrictions. Between 23:00 and 07:00, the noisiest aircraft (rated QC/8 and QC/16) cannot be scheduled for operation. In addition, during the night quota period (23:30–06:00) there are four limits:
A limit on the number of flights allowed;
A Quota Count system which limits the total amount of noise permitted, but allows operators to choose to operate fewer noisy aircraft or a greater number of quieter planes;[18]
QC/4 aircraft cannot be scheduled for operation.
A voluntary agreement with the airlines that no early morning arrivals will be scheduled to land before 04:30.
There is some more in there but this the gist of it. Bottom line, between 11-7, they aren't moving like in the day.
andyc852
If you look at Google maps and see where the proposed runway would go it is in close proximity to several large reservoirs aka birdstrike hazards. Investment estimate is approx $26bn vs $10bn for LGW. You could build a very efficient high speed rail link between the two airports and still have money left over.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I still think it's stupid to spend that kind of money that will only operate at 2/3 capacity. Oh Well, it's theirs, not mine.
nasdisco
Chris B 1
Buying our half of London would be a massively expensive.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Agreed, but probably not anymore expensive than that 3rd runway to be used 2/3 of the time.
preacher1
preacher1 1
My personal opinion is that if they would spend far less money and buy out those in the flight path, and open the airport to 24 hr operation, they could accomplish more. If they don't, in years to come they will face the same problem again.
Paul1davis
Paul Davis 1
The people living under the flight path didn't wake up the morning after moving in and think, bugger me who put an airport there. There are not many of the original occupants around any more, by original, I mean pre Heathrow. When Heathrow was first built, London was nowhere near as built up as it is today. Approach to Heathrow from the East is directly over Central London anyway.
Paul1davis
Paul Davis 1
Oh, and I work there!!
preacher1
preacher1 1
I guess that in defense of some of those that bough knowing an airport was thee: There was quite a noise increase from prop to jet, starting in the 50's/60's. Now who is there past then has no excuse.
Paul1davis
Paul Davis 1
Ah, but now they're getting quieter.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Maybe in regard to a 727 without a hush kit. LOL
Paul1davis
Paul Davis 1
I know what you mean, I lived next to Heathrow as a kid, I can remember the likes of VC10's, Trident's, Caravelle's as well as early 707's, DC8's and Convairs. All of them could shake your fillings out!
ColinSeftel
The flight path covers some pretty expensive real estate, Windsor Castle for example!

登入

還沒有帳戶嗎? 現在就註冊(免費),設置諸多客制化功能、航班提醒等等!
本網站使用cookie。您使用並繼續瀏覽本網站,即表示您接受這一點。
退出
您知道FlightAware航班跟蹤是由廣告支持嗎?
通過允許展示來自FlightAware.com的廣告,您可以幫助我們使FlightAware保持免費。我們努力使我們的廣告保持相關性,同時不顯突兀,以創造一流的體驗。在FlightAware上將廣告加入白名單快速而簡單,或者請您考慮選擇我們的高級帳戶.
退出