The Luton runway at Heathrow

A proposal for a short northern runway at London Heathrow Airport (LHR) by an independent panel of aviation experts “The Heathrow Consortium” (Consortium).

It was thrown out by the Department for Transport on the morning of the presentation and noted in last month's TNU.  www.travelnewsupdate.co.uk/article/1086

Members of the Consortium

• Malcolm Ginsberg – air transport specialist and partial creator of London City Airport on which he is an authority

• Captain Jeremy Feldman – easyJet pilot

• David Learmount – ex-RAF and Technical Editor Flight Global

• Alison Chambers – ex-Flight International and advisor to Slot Co-ordination Ltd 

• Chris Danner – ex-NATS  

Airbus, Boeing and Embraer have supplied technical information

INTRODUCTION

According to various sources London Heathrow Airport (LHR) with its current twin runways will not be able to cope with the throughput of 150m passengers predicted by 2035.

The LHR ratio of narrow-body to wide-bodied aircraft is 61%.  Last year 83.9 million passengers travelled through the four terminals, a record figure. LHR forecasts 84.2 million passengers in 2025.

The Consortium calls for a third strip north of the present runways, operational by 2033, the length (1500m to 2200m) dictated to by 737MAX/Airbus range/payload requirement.  As a comparison Luton Airport (2152M) offers destinations!   

We are aware of two other submissions to the Department for Transport (DfT) plus a further one, known as Aras, named after its creator Aras Kubikay, dating from 2017, which has probably been abandoned.  It called for up to two runways south of the airport.

The scheme offers substantial savings in costs, delivery and environmental issues on competing ideas.  Overall it gives up to one-third extra aircraft movements on the existing runways with the same ratio of passenger and cargo revenue increase. 

Latest research by Heathrow Ltd indicates that the third runway would increase Air Traffic Movements (ATMs) by 276,000 a year, to a total of 756,000 per year and with expanding and modernising the airport could bring overall capacity up to 150m passengers per year.

The Heathrow Ltd initial 60-page presentation suggests a mammoth building site for 15 years. It calls for a similar runway to the present pair of 3500m strips, straddling the M25. It includes development plans for Terminals 2 and 3.  That work is essential and will have to be undertaken whether there is a new runway or not. A further 400-page submission has been made, at the end of the day paid for by passengers using London's main international gateway airport, now said to be falling behind in terms of conectivity.

The Arora Group has a 200-page detailed presentation with a 2800m runway, funded by the participating parites.  Both schemes include the redevelopment of T5. 

We have come up with a compromise.   

The Consortium Runway 3 at 2200m will offer a limited number of  mainland Europe’s major destinations with full payload narrow-bodied aircraft.  Any further destinations can be covered by the main runways. By 2030 plus aircraft performance would have improved.  See addendum. 

Our concept does not include the rebuilding T5, nor the additional stands/gates required but concentrates on the actual runway.  Should DfT be disposed to go ahead with our short runway scheme we would consider a partnership with either Heathrow Ltd or Acora, or another party to move forward. This has  been discussed with Surinder Acora, lead for the 2800m runway, who is linked in with Bechtel the construction company

Our team is made up of long-established air transport professionals.  Both British Airways and Virgin Atlantic (part of the Delta Airlines Group) are aware of this proposal, as is IATA, the airline passenger association. 

Airbus, Boeing and Embraer are able to substantiate the noise and other levels when comparing narrow-bodied and wide-bodied aircraft.

The Consortium short R3 scheme wishes to limit wide-bodied aircraft to the existing twin runways, and by virtue of its length (same width) only allowing the much quieter and more environmentally friendly narrow-bodied aircraft use of the new runway.

The Heathrow Ltd plan involves the construction of further stands to the west of the existing T5.  We support this.  Acora calls for a new building plus aircraft stands to the north.  This is over ambitious (it is built for wide-bodied too) but a cut down version would work.

Whilst the current government supports the major third runway the Consortium submission is an attractive and far less politically challenging proposition.

Funding for The Consortium short runway scheme would need to come from Heathrow Ltd, but would be much less than their own plan paid for by the airlines and at the end of the day, the travelling public.


WHY THE SHORT RUNWAY?

• A bonus for the Nation.

• Vastly cheaper than alternatives. 

• In terms of legislation, it would be easier to accommodate.

• The delivery of the short runway will be far earlier.  It could be by 2031. London City, a new airport, took from its invention June 1982 to the first passenger flight just five years. 

• Aircraft performance.  These figures are based on current aircraft and temperatures.  See below.

• More slots available for UK and European regional airports.

• Shorter aircraft time on R3 will allow for more movements than the longer runway.

• No large aircraft on the new runway and less noise and pollution.

• Runway footprint far less.

• It is shorter, the runway more aligned to the west, further away from the built-up area.

• Less noise over Hayes, Harlington and the Harrow Council area.

• With less land being used much more thought can be given to the local road network. 

• Less taxi time for take-off and redeeming landed aircraft in the east.

• Emergency services will have a shorter amount of time to travel and only need to provide for the size of aircraft using the runway.

• The runway replicates Southampton, a useful and relatively local (60 miles) airport if needed in an emergency. 

• Existing main runway cargo capacity could increase by 50% by building additional freight warehouses to the south of the airport – it will not directly impact on road movements.

• The extra capacity will open up cargo slots and reduce main runway night cargo operations.

• The new runway will be fully closed at night. 

• T5 was designed with extra Underground capacity.  Another evaluation can be made for routes to the West.  With some years for R3 to become operational there is time for this passenger routing to be evaluated and developed.

• The T5 area is reconstituted with extra stands.  Suggestions can be made available.

• We do not know the percentage of connecting traffic at present from T5 to 2/3/4, or visa versa. This requires consideration.

• LHR Ltd’s R3 terminal scheme also requires assessing, likewise Acora T6.  One or the other could be the answer. 

• At present the LHR average load factor is 80% and 61% of the aircraft are narrow-body.  We see no reason for a change in the short-term.

• The Regional and Business Airports (RABA) Group representing the smaller UK regional and business airports supports LHR expansion and is privé to this proposal.

• The Council for the Independent Scrutiny of Heathrow Airport (CISHA) is aware of our presentation.

Luton is the best comparison with 130 airports served and a runway less than 2200m.  

Where the aircraft cannot reach the destination, it will be consigned to the main runways.

In summary the Consortium scheme ticks all the right boxes for the future of LHR and its vital position concerning the British economy at vastly less cost and disruption.  And no impinging on the M25.

We believe that the short R3 runway is the future with a length of 2200m.  The DfT should recommend and back it. Calling it the “Luton Answer” might be confusing.

Index/Home page
 

READERS' COMMENT

All comments are filtered to exclude any excesses but the Editor does not have to agree with what is being said. 200 words maximum

No one has commented yet, why don't you start the ball rolling?