The Third runway at Heathrow and the Second at Gatwick

This post follows on from the previous one. 

We have to make a short diversion to see why there is a need for a third runway at Heathrow. For many years after its opening in 1946 Heathrow was pushed as "London Airport", without making any distinction with other airports in the south east of England. This was to be the country´s hub airport, with six runways, where you could fly to anywhere. The airlines of other countries took this on, to such an extent, that when the government wanted to extend the use of Gatwick and Stansted (in the early 1970s) by sending the foreign airlines to operate from these airports, they answered with a resounding, NO. 

The independence of ex-colonial territories in the 1950s and 1960s meant that each new country wanted to set up its own airline, partly as an expression of identity.One of the logical places to fly firstly, was the home of the former colonial power. The frequency of the flights only partly depended on economic need but there was no free-for-all. Agreements were drawn up between trading partners which split the market between the two countries´ airlines. Frequently, BOAC (or BEA) occupied the UK quota while the other country designated its own (usually state-owned) airline. Sometimes other national carriers were permitted to participate so we saw the introduction of international flights flown by airlines such as British United Airways(BUA), British Eagle,BKS, British Midland, Laker and later Virgin Atlantic. However, this was always within the 50% quota of traffic between the two countries. (Take note that it was not always the traffic between cities but between countries.)

This form of transport division was kept going until the US President Reagan´s era when his administration wished to open the traffic across the North Atlantic and do away with the so-called Bermuda agreements which had dominated thinking for about 35 years, since the end of World War 2. With Reaganites at one end of the negotiating table while Thatcherites were at the other end, as both were on the same wavelength it did not take long for both to reach an agreement. This successful outcome became the norm for agreements signed elsewhere - especially with the European Economic Union (EEU) which the UK had joined in the 1970s.

How did these changes affect Heathrow (LHR)?

With regard to the USA/UK market, there had been two US airlines flying into LHR. Originally these were Pan Am and TWA. Any other US airline had to fly into Gatwick or Stansted. With the collapse of those two US airlines they were replaced by United and Delta plus American Airlines. Now any airline which can obtain the slots can fly into Heathrow. The British airlines into/out of Heathrow are British Airways(BA) and Virgin Atlantic. Now no other British airline has shown an inclination to take up the rights to fly from LHR. Those that have , in recent years have used Gatwick (Norwegian and its successor, Norse Atlantic). Others have made no impact. The US airlines now see the addition of JetBlue to New York and later, in 2023, to Boston.

The airlines of other countries have mostly used their rights to fly into LHR  and to/from nowhere else. There was one exception when Air France tried to operate a flight from LHR to Los Angeles but it did not last long and nobody else has tried to do the same. Air India and Kuwait Airways originally had transatlantic flight rights to New York, but these have been allowed to lapse.

The present situation is that BA dominates usage of the airport with exclusive use of Terminal 5 but also uses Terminal 3. Flights from other members of its group owners, IAG, also fly into T5 while so do some from the oneworld alliance partnership. 

Virgin Atlantic started its operations from Gatwick and then spread to LHR when slots became available where they flew from T3. Now they have as owners Delta airlines  with 49% of shares but effectively complete control. The Virgin group has the remaining 51%. From 2022 the airline has decided to abandon Gatwick and concentrate all its efforts at LHR. Here it flies from T3 alongside its part owner Delta. Also it has decided to ally itself with Delta in the Skyteam alliance with KLM and Air France. That way it hopes to pick up any slots it may need from its partners.

You can then see that any more slots it may need will have to come from an increase in runway capacity. This leads us to a third runway at LHR and by extension a second at Gatwick. BA has returned to Gatwick with holiday routes, while most of the other capacity there is occupied by Easyjet and Wizzair. IAG is using Gatwick to extend the network of routes flown by its subsidiary, Vueling, as well as its newly set-up Gatwick based subsidiary BA Euroflyer. No doubt Air France and KLM will copy that tactic by increasing the slots for their susidiaries, Transavia (France and Netherlands), and Lufthansa will do the same with its subsidiary, Eurowings. Others will also do the same especially when they want a good airport with good connections, but they are unwilling to pay higher charges imposed by LHR.

As a result of this then, to satisfy demand, airports should be provided with the means to build second runways (in the case of Heathrow a third). Gatwick wants to use a taxiway as a second runway. This is not ideal as both cannot be used at the same time. It has set aside land for a second runway parallel to the existing first runway. Let Gatwick build its second runway when it sees fit. Do not give permission for an additional terminal that way we can have part of the necessary infrastructure up and ready for when it is needed. However, the limitation of expansion of the passenger capacity of the airport remains in place, if that is the decided option.

The question of other airports is varied but all the main ones should have a two runway capacity at least.Why two runways? This is a fundamental question for all the airports. If the main runway is out of use what alternatives exist? Accidents on the one hand do happen while maintenance of the runway operations is an ongoing necessity. These factors alone demand that the airport should be able to offer a reasonable alternative to its customers - - - the airlines, the passengers and the freight hauliers who use the aircraft do not want delays nor inconveniences so would applaud such a measure  - - - to increase the possibility of increasing the use of the runways at the airports.

This measure does not mean drastic massive construction. In fact the majority of our airports are old military airfields so have other runways already constructed. However, for modern aircraft they would need to be extended (and widened). As a "rule of thumb" for jet operation runways should be about 2000m. long as a minimum. For large, widebodied, long-distance aircraft we would need runways of a 3000m length (in general terms) - smaller aircraft, not so lengthy runways. 

Let us take a look at the airport situation in the United Kingdom.

1-Inverness:1780m. Two crossover runways provide alternatives but with limitations on their extension.

2-Aberdeen: 1950m. which could be extended. A second parallel runway of equal length would need to be constructed using taxiways. No other possibilities exist onsite.

3-Dundee: 1400m. This runway could be extended to about 1570m. but he site is too small and unsuitable for another runway. Edinburgh is a relatively short distance away to be used as an alternative.

4-Edinburgh: 2560m. There exists the possibility of using parallel taxiways as an alternative runway. Better still, land is available for a second parallel runway north of the main runway.

5-Glasgow: 2650m. There is no possibility of a second runway. Edinburgh and Prestwick are alternatives. 

6-Prestwick: 2980m. Already has two crossover runways at 90º The SW to NE runway could be extended up to 3000 m.

7-Carlisle:1830m. In addition to the present main runway there are two crossover runways. These should be maintained with the possibility of extending them to 2000m. even though they are not needed at present because the volume of traffic at this stage is so low.

8-Newcastle: 2330m. The only possibility is to reserve land to the north so as to construct a parallel runway of about 2000m.  

9-Teeside: 2290m. A new east-west runway could be constructed using part of the old infrastructure. The alternative is to reserve land as at Newcastle.

10-Blackpool: 1870m. If this airport were ever to be reopened then the present runway could be extended, while the only alternative would be a runway using part of the old infrastructure in a SE - NW direction.This, however, would be limited to about 1500m. max.

11- Leeds/Bradford: 2250m. No land is available on site at the moment. However, land is available for a second parallel runway within a reasonable distance (about 2000m) from the airport.

12- Humberside: 2200m. An old crossover runway could be used as backup but by extending it to 2500m. if needed.

13- Doncaster/Sheffield: 2890m. It has recently been announced that the owners are to close this airport. There is not enough traffic after the withdrawal of Wizz. However, if one were needed then using the parallel taxiway might be an alternative.

14- Manchester: 3050m. Britain´s most important airport outside the South East of England. It already has a second runway parallel to the main one. They are too close together to be operated independently. They complement each other as do the two runways at Gatwick. In the long term an independent second runway would be more advisable.

15- Liverpool: 2280m. It wants a second runway which has not yet been conceded. The traffic is mostly domestic (British Isles) and holiday --- Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey etc.

16- Birmingham: 3050m. This airport is too close to London to offer a real alternative to the capital´s airport offer. However, that said, there are a number of long distance services offered from the airport - particularly to India and Pakistan. The potential is there to increase the traffic. The parallel taxiway might be able to be converted into an alternative.

17- East Midlands: 2890m. An important airport for freight, especially Royal Mail, but also used by holiday airlines. The possibility exists of using the parallel taxiway when needed.

18- Norwich: 1840m. An area which has a certain importance but is out of the way. So the airport at most could provide connecting services within the British Isles and to Brussels and Amsterdam. There is a crossover runway of 1740m. for use if necessary.

19- London Stansted: 3050m. This was pushed to be London´s second airport in the nineteen sixties and seventies. However, as the Thames estuary plans were rejected so were these. Since then the powers that be have tried to push forward its candidature by getting award winning terminals built. Its rail connection to Liverpool St. Station is rather long because of the crowded commuter lines. That does not mean the airport should be ignored,.... but certainly placed after Heathrow and Gatwick in importance. A second runway would have to be built outside the present limits but in an emergency one of the taxiways could be available.

20- London Luton: 2160m. The north London airport with great potential, serving that part of London  but also it could serve passengers arriving from all parts of the north who would not need to pass through London itself. It is bettering its infrastructure in a haphazard manner with no overall plan. The topography would make any construction of a second runway difficult but necessary.

21- London Southend: 1850m. This small airport is often seen by some operators as an alternative to London City. It is or has been used by Easyjet, Ryanair and Wizz at different times. The rail connection to London is good. A second runway is only possible on a greenfield site at some distance. No other on-site possibility exists.

22- London City: 1510m. The limitations of the old docklands and the river itself restrict any extension of the airport runway without ridiculous expenditure. So the airport is and will remain focused on London´s financial centre with only one runway.

23- London Gatwick: 3300m.The limitations of having a second runway were lifted in 2019.

 

Image caption,

Gatwick identified three options for a second runway, but the Davies Commission shortlisted Option 3, which would allow fully independent operation.

There is room for another runway but no permission has been sought nor given for such a construction. So Gatwick is using its taxiway (parallel to the main runway) as a second runway when needed. This is only a short term temporary solution to overloading/overcrowding.

Gatwick Master plan, page 94, section 5.4 "Safeguarding for an additional runway to the south".      page 168, Plan 20 Airport Layout - additional runway : the pointer marked 13

https://www.gatwickairport.com/globalassets/business--community/growing-gatwick/master-plan-2019/gatwick-master-plan-2019.pdf

The prefered option is the most southerly of the three shown in the image. 

24- London Heathrow: 3900m. It has been known for some years that Heathrow needs a third runway. However, the pandemic put a stop to that need as passenger numbers plummeted. Now they are nearing 60-70 % of 2019 figures but still below the 75 million which Heathrow achieved. I would think that the airport´s own plans for a third runway should be scaled down as their size and complexity are not needed, though the third runway is.

"Heathrow Airport Expansion - Consultation Document",   June 2019

file:///C:/Users/usuario/Downloads/Heathrow-Expansion-Consultation-June-2019.pdf

I am not in favour of the present siting, as indicated in thge image. The runway should not cross the M25 but be more to the east so that it crosses the rail lines from the north to Terminals 2 & 3. Therefore, a new station could be built underground up to the new terminal (1?) above it. This would make it most acessible and less expensive.

25- Southampton: 1720m. This airport needs to expand to become viable. It reckons it needs 1.2 million pax. annually. It could be expanded and has the necessary permission to 2000m. which would permit the airport to operate with small and medium jets up to the A320 family.

"UK’s Southampton Airport: part two – 2019 levels ‘unachievable’ without runway extension", (CAPA.com, 27-10-22)

https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/reports/uks-southampton-airport-part-two--2019-levels-unachievable-without-runway-extension-626084

26- Bournemouth: 2270m. Used by Easyjet as well as others. This airport has a crossover runway which could be used as a second one.

27- Bristol: 2010m. An important Easyjet hub. A second parallel runway would have to be built to the south outside the present perimeter, though the parallel taxiway could be used in an emergency.

28- Exeter: 2080m. A parallel second runway would have to be built to the northeast of the present site, though a crossover runway of just about 1000m. could be available for small aircraft. There would be no chance of extending it.

29- Plymouth: This airport was closed and mothballed in 2011 with the site being preserved. It has at most a 1200m runway with no room for expansion.

30- Newquay/RAF St.Mawgan: 2750m. This airport is becoming increasingly popular. It will continue to do so as it aspires to become Britain´s spaceport. A 1700m (extendible) crossover runway could be brought into use if necessary.

31- Cardiff: 2400m. This airport only remains open thanks to the Welsh Gov. A crossover runway (SW-NE) could be developed and extended if necessary.

32- Anglesey/RAF Valley: 2290m. I think the RAF would dictate its own needs here as the passenger flights are few and far between. A north/south crossover runway could be developed and extended if necessary.

33- Hawarden: 2040m. Last used on a regular basis as a stopping point by British Eagle on some of its Liverpool flights to London. Now it is for Airbus Beluga (and other) flights to other Airbus plants. No second runway needed.

34- Isle of Man: 1750m. (This could easily be extended to 2000m) There is an opportunity to build a runway parallel to the main runway on the existing taxiway. Also one of the out-of-use runways, south-west to north-east, could be extended, to about 1600m., to be used as an alternative.

35- Belfast City: 1730m.,though could easily be extended to 2600m. There is no room for any alternative runways. Belfast International would be the solution.

36- Belfast International: 2780m A perpendicular crossover runway of 1800m already exists.

37- (London)derry: 1860m. A crossover runway could be brought back into use of up to a length of 1770m. in the NW-SE direction.

38- Jersey: 1600m. There are no possibilities for alternatives.The main runway could be extended up to 2200m.

39- Guernsey: 1460m.There are no possibilities for alternatives. The main runway could be extended up to 2000m.

40- Alderney: 880m The runway is short and cannot really be lengthened to more than 1160m. It is also irrational as the traffic is basically connecting Alderney to Jersey and Guernsey with turboprop aircraft with limited capacity. If there were such greater demand, flights could operate to Exeter, Southampton and the nearest airports in northern France.

Here I have pointed out all the airports in the UK (except the Scottish islands). Possibilities exist for alternatives in case of need. They do not have to built at every airport but should be taken into account and the necessary land reserved where needed. That way unnecessary expense can be avoided in the future when the case arises. We only have to look at our truncated railways to see how difficult it can be to recuperate lost land which was originally dedicated to the transport system.

However, since we are only really looking at the cases of Heathrow and Gatwick I am sure it is quite clear what has to be done. People do not make the majority of the noise and the pollution but the aeroplanes and their supporting machinery. Reduce their impact and you can solve the problem. The introduction of hydrogen and electric power could lead to substantial improvements. Let us go ahead with them and so we would be able to enjoy our flying again without a guilty conscience.

To Fly or not to Fly? - Is that the Question?

No, it is obviously not the question.

This was a question before the pandemic but is still there. The arguments for banning flying are still around, not so loud as before but they have not gone away. thus let us look at the question seriously before it takes off and gets lost in all the hubris.

Flying as a means of transport was introduced to us in the twentieth century, and it is not going to disappear. It is the fastest and most direct way of getting from A to B. For people who live on islands and wish to get to another land-mass flying is the best, most rapid and cheapest form of transport. The Scottish Hebrides, Orkney and Shetland Isles are home to some of the most isolated communities in the British Isles. so they depend on the air services provided to keep them in connection with other essential services which their own communities cannot provide. But you do not need to live in an isolated community so as to have to take advantage of air services to other communities. The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are all depend on air services, not to mention the whole of Ireland, which does not have to connect to Great Britain alone but also to its partners in mainland Europe. The only alternative are ocean going ferries. However, these are much slower than aircraft, turning a one-hour plane journey into an expedition of several hours to reach one’s destination. 

So far, we have looked at most of the islands in this archipelago off the coast of mainland Europe. However, if we look at the rest of Europe we have, Cyprus, the Aegean Islands of Greece and Turkey, Malta(and Gozo), Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, The Balearic Islands, The Canary Islands, The Azores and Madeira, all of which are separated by sea from Mainland Europe. Ask the people who live on those islands as well as the people wanting to visit them. Do they want to be forced to take ferries when travelling away from/to them? I am sure that the vast majority would prefer flying. This truth would be underlined when travelling further afield, such as Cyprus to London (and elsewhere in Britain) or Gran Canaria to peninsula Spain (and on to e.g. Vigo). The argument is unanswerable. 

So if the question is not, ... to fly or not to fly? What is the correct question?

Maybe it should be....."How can we reduce, as much as possible, the negative impacts of flying on the environment?" 

It should be emphasised here that flying only represents 2-2.5% of global warming gasses. As such a large reduction in its quantity will only have a minor effect on the environment. Does that mean we can ignore its effect? - certainly not.

The gas guzzling giant jets such as the B747s and A380s are being withdrawn completely. In the case of Air France it has already done so. The pandemic has given the process that extra push as loss making airlines, meaning all of them, started scrambling to obtain the efficient B787s and A350s as soon as they came off the assembly line. The jumbos were popular with customers but have become uneconomic. Four engines for the former and two engines for the latter though all four planes are widebodied. The introduction of lightweight materials in construction has also made a marked difference. When you talk about savings on running costs of up to 30 per cent, that is something which cannot be ignored.

That means the aircraft manufacturers have made great steps in the reduction of pollution. The airlines are taking these innovations on as soon as is feasible. So the ball falls back into the court of the government about when the measures to apply the improvements are put into effect. The logistics of replacement of the older by the new will dictate matters.

The other thing which should not be forgotten is what is provided as on-land services to the airline companies (and airport). Airside vehicles must change from petrol/diesel usage to electric battery usage (or other means) --- "Follow Me" vehicles, push/pull back tractors, baggage and luggage movements, container freight movement,  passenger on/deloading stairs, passenger buses to and from the terminals, and many more. Not least should be the prohibition of any use of combustion engine vehicles airside, private, company, or official.

One minus one minus one etc. soon increases to a considerable reduction up to one hundred. Quickly the reduction in noise is substantial until the only noise would be airliners moving along the taxiways. In the same way the level of air pollution airside of the terminals quickly diminishes. Once this becomes measurable then the cleaner air becomes noticeable.

 On the other hand the policy landside must of necessity be more pragmatic. Much depends on the size of the airport. Southampton, Teeside and Inverness are by no means the same size as Stansted, Gatwick nor Manchester. "Horses for Courses" as the saying goes. Apply what is applicable and viable to each airport individually but with the aim of reducing the use of combustion engine vehicles within airport bounds wherever possible. The obligation to use electric (or other non-polluting) vehicles and the prohibition to use combustion engined vehicles should be applied to all public (and airport)and private freight and passenger means of transport.

The question of other airports is varied but all the main ones should have a two runway capacity at least. Why two runways? This is a fundamental question for all the airports. If the main runway is out of use what alternatives exist? Accidents on the one hand do happen, while maintenance of the runway operations is an ongoing necessity. These factors alone demand that the airport can offer a reasonable alternative to its customers - - - the airlines, the passengers and the freight hauliers who use the aircraft do not want delays nor inconveniences so would applaud such a measure  - - - to increase the possibility of increasing the use of the runways at the airports.

An add-on effect of having two runways in use, will be the reduction of aircraft traffic over the flight paths. If we maintain the total volume of traffic permissible, compared to a one runway airport, only half the traffic would fly over the same residential areas as before. Heathrow residents are witness to this when the traffic was altered to landings and takeoffs on alternate runways halfway through the day. This solution still lasts at Heathrow and could be introduced at Gatwick as soon as the second runway is built. 

As usual solutions exist to satisfy neighbours of the airports. The machines can be made to suit the needs and not the other way round which is erroneous. All it needs is some constructive thinking so that all the desired aims are achieved. That way the airport noise is reduced and the environmental targets can be achieved. 

-----------------------