1 Introduction

1.1 As a civil airline pilot who currently operates from Heathrow, having also operated from Gatwick, I hereby submit proposals from my own pilot and passenger perspective on how to deal with the needs of airport capacity, specifically with a focus on hub development for London. Significant changes to the location and concentration of housing, industry, and transport infrastructure have taken place since the Roskill Commission recommended the site of Cublington in 1971. Social attitudes to environmental noise, pollution, and damage to Sites of Scientific Interest have heightened, and therefore self inflicted political impediments and protracted delays would be expected if a site were selected which didn’t expand on one of the existing London airports. Three new inland sites are also suggested in case these sites have been overlooked, however given the inability of UK politicians to have made any progress in expanding existing sites over the last several decades it is acknowledged that it would be difficult to gain political support for any of the new sites even if they were the most ideal site for an airport in terms of noise and travelling time to the airport for the majority of UK travellers.

1.2 A new airport should be constructed close to existing motorways and railways, including future high speed railway lines, within 30 minutes of London by train, and are near towns and industry, but with approach and takeoff noise cones that avoided population centres that allow for 24 hour operations.

1.3 With the obvious exception of option 2.1, “Heathrow Expansion”, the assumption is made that in order to make a non-Heathrow development viable, the Heathrow site would have to close completely to all aviation traffic otherwise a Montreal type scenario could occur, which would completely negate the aim of noise cessation and concentration of traffic at the new hub airport. Successful airport moves and closures have taken place in the past, most notably at Hong Kong, Munich and Oslo, with reduced flying at Le Bourget in the move to Charles de Gaulle. Ineffective transitions have occurred at Montreal and Tokyo.

1.3.1 The vast majority of the Heathrow site footprint would be reused for high technology industry, including Information Technology, science, bioscience, medical research, world class universities and a teaching hospital, with a lower proportion of the site given over to high density, and high quality residential tower blocks and commercial space, similar to Canary Wharf or Vancouver city centre. A minimal proportion of the site should be given over to retail and no portion of the site should be given to the financial services as it is adequately catered for in the City and Docklands. The idea would be to create a world class site for technology and science, and provide jobs that could allow the UK to compete in the high growth, high technology sectors, and reduce London’s dependence on the financial sector. As no air traffic would overfly the site, tower blocks could be of a similar design, height, and quality to that of the new structures currently being completed in London at present. It would also be a complete waste of an asset to convert the site to another garden city when we already struggle to compete with other developed market and emerging markets in new technology and high growth areas. A mini Singapore on the Heathrow site could transform the UK. 1.3.2 The slot allocation at Heathrow would be retained and transferred unaltered to the new airport up to the opening of the first two runways in operation for a new site, and three runways if Stansted expansion was approved. Growth at Stansted would be immediately available after three runways were open since the existing operators only use around 50% of the airports available capacity. Such a transfer would allow the incumbent airlines from Heathrow not to be disadvantaged by the necessity to move airports and also enable the UK carriers to maintain their foothold and advantage while the airport prepares to open the further runway(s). Given the vast size and financial backing of the airlines of the Middle East and USA, failure to fairly treat the existing carrier’s slot allocations in the initial move could dramatically open up the UK airlines to competition that could decimate their operation and dramatically affect UK aviation employment.

2. Best option reusing existing infrastructure

2.1 Heathrow expansion: A four runway Heathrow is possible however some existing buildings would have to be removed. The current two runways would be retained. All cargo operations, terminal and logistics would move to the area between Harmondsworth and Sipson, therefore the two villages could remain. The existing Cargo Terminal would be demolished to make way for part of one of the new runways. As the proposal moves the two new runways around 2km to the west of the existing runways, these new runways would be used for landing when aircraft land westerly having approached over London, therefore reducing the noise footprint. Note the actual touch-down aim points for the aircraft could be even further west by using inset thresholds 1km from the runway edge, reducing the effective runway length from 4000m to 3000m and thus reducing the noise footprint of aircraft on approach, resulting in an effective touch-down point 3km further to the west of the existing touch-down points. (See Heathrow Attachment)

2.1.1 New Northern Runway: This runway would be 4000m long and constructed to the North of 09L/27R, build between the Northern Perimeter Road and the A4. Unlike ’s own “North-West” runway submission, this runway would be slightly closer to the existing airport and therefore would not affect the M4, nor affect Harmondsworth or Sipson, saving several billion pounds. It would commence just to the west of the existing M4 spur tunnel near the fire station, running west to the M25. Some hotels, Compass Centre, hire car facilities, car parks and the village of Longford would need to be demolished. The Northern part of Poyle industrial estate and village may also need to be demolished. The M25 would be put in a tunnel section under the new runway. This runway could range from 3000m to 4000m, however a 3500m minimum length would enable the flexibility of allowing departures of heavy aircraft on long range flights.

2.1.2 New Southern Runway: An alternative to Heathrow Airport’s own “South- West” runway submission, this runway will also be 4000m long and is located closed to the existing airport and so reducing property purchase and demolition costs at Stanwell Moor village. The runway would be located to the south of 09R/27L and commence on the site of the existing Cargo Terminal, proceeding west along the Southern Perimeter Road, over the A3044/A3113 roundabout, through Stanwell Moor village over the M25. Only the southern half of Wraysbury Reservoir could be retained, and the M25 would again need to be tunnelled below the runway. Depending on the performance restrictions of departing in proximity to Terminal 4, it could be set even further west, although that may not be necessary. The touch-down point when landing from either direction could be moved along the runway to inset the threshold 1000m, leaving 3000m landing distance available. Note that Vancouver 26R is only 3050m long, and New York JFK has significant runway inset thresholds for landing that mean runway landing distances are reduced to around 2500m. Therefore the 3000m distance suggested is by no means problematic.

2.2 Operational design and use

2.2.1 Any expansion should make noise mitigation a priority. A significant reduction in the decibel level under the approach and departure routings can be achieved through runway location and air traffic operations. The following measures would be taken:

i) Positioning the two new runways at least 2km further west than the existing runways. ii) Inset thresholds on landing runways in use to reduce the noise intensity at ground level under the approach path. On a 3 degree standard glide slope, each 1 nautical mile shift in landing position equates to an aircraft being 320ft higher than it otherwise would be. A proposed 1km shift will mean that aircraft will be 170ft higher on approach. Although it would seem illogical to build a new runway yet operate it with an inset threshold for landing, it does offer significant flexibility to minimise delays when recovering from periods of disruption, congestion and emergency planning. It would mean that when excessive departure delays occurred, these runways could then be operated as additional departure runways using the full 4000m runway length for heavy jets. Similarly, landing delays and recovery times after periods of weather restrictions would be reduced as 3 or 4 runways could be temporarily used for landing. Emergency landings could also take place by using the non-inset threshold full runway length. This is similar to Frankfurt where there are two landing points on the same runway, so nothing is being suggested that hasn't been done elsewhere before. iii) Easterly operations:- landing on the original runways that are further east, and departing from the two new more westerly located runways. iv) Westerly operations:- landing on the two new runways that are further west, and departing from the current runways.

Westerly operations offer reductions in individual aircraft noise levels over London. A 2km shifted runway and 1km inset threshold will mean that landing aircraft travelling over West London will be shifted 3km further west, and therefore fly 510ft higher than at present.

For easterly operations, there would be a slight reduction in noise from aircraft landing and a significant reduction for aircraft departing. On the existing runways, the landing position would be inset 1km further east, situating aircraft 170ft higher over Windsor and Datchet. Aircraft departing to the East over Hounslow and west London will subject residents to lower environmental noise due to the 2km shift west in aircraft takeoff point versus the existing 09R runway. This 2km shift can equate to a heavy aircraft being around 500ft higher on departure, and lighter aircraft being around 750ft higher with a consequential noise improvement at surface level.

Appropriate air traffic control sequencing of aircraft would be required in order to avoid spurious TCAS (Traffic Collision Alerting System) warnings between aircraft departing and landing on staggered runways that may be regarded as closely separated. This should cause minimal inefficiencies as landing aircraft take around 30 seconds to rollout ie land and vacate the landing runway, and so during that stage the departing aircraft can be carrying out its takeoff roll and depart from the adjacent departing runway. This is similar to how Los Angeles operates their four runways. Gatwick ATC operate an even more refined procedure from just one runway, therefore it should be possible to adapt procedures to conduct an operation from closely spaced adjacent runways. Modifications may also be required to SID (Standard Instrument Departure) routings, the introduction of more non-linear RNAV (Random Navigation) arrival routings, and changes to go-around routings. Assessments of these items are necessary during the planning phase of any runway, so it is a routine planning and development matter. Gatwick’s ATC are capable of moving 48 aircraft per hour. Optimally this would mean Heathrow could operate 4x48=192 aircraft per hour, but due to the closely spaced runways it is likely to be operated in a similar manner to the present Heathrow runways. At Heathrow this means 40 departures off on e runway, and 40 landings on another per hour. Therefore it is suggested that capacity could be doubled, and 160 aircraft movements per hour could be achieved.

2.2.2 Suggested Westerly Operations

New Northern Runway: Landing

Existing 27R: Departure

Existing 27L: Departure

New Southern Runway: Landing

2.2.3. Suggested Easterly Operations.

New Northern Runway: Departure

Existing 09L: Landing

Existing 09R: Landing

New Southern Runway: Departure.

2.3 Terminal Expansion

Terminal expansion can be situated on an east west alignment to the North and South respectively of the two new runways. This is similar to Frankfurt where one long terminal generally forms the design and this can prevent terminals from sprawling beyond the airport’s traditional area. Terminal 4 could also be expanded west into the area along the Southern perimeter road, and into part of the area vacated by the Cargo terminal. Sufficient surface area exists without needlessly decimating the surrounding area.

2.4 Connectivity

By increasing the capacity of the airport to handle over 100m passengers per year local roads and the M25 in particular will be under severe pressure. It will be essential that all stalled public transport projects be built, such as Heathrow Airtrack, and it will also be necessary to ensure there is an HS2 spur in place as quickly as possible, with a possible continuation to the south west to Southampton to provide alternative relief and options for passengers who would otherwise have driven on the M3/M25. Double decking of the M25 (including the tunnelled sections under the new runways) between the M3 and M4 may have to be considered as the current traffic levels on this section between J12 and J15 of the M25 are intolerable even with current traffic levels.

Existing Connectivity Via:

Heathrow Express/Connect

Crossrail

Great Western loop

Tube

M25, M4

Possible Future Connectivity

HS2 Spur / continuation to Southampton

Heathrow Airtrack to Waterloo, and Gatwick via Guildford

Gatwick/Heathrow direct service (even standard track ie non express HS1/HS2 standard) to reduce 40mile journey to 40minutes rather than 2hours 10minutes by tube and train.

3. Best compromise option - based on noise, all-runway 24 hour operation, and part reuse of existing infrastructure

3.1 Stansted expansion: A four to six runway airport could be accommodated at this site, which compared to Heathrow has a favourable noise impact. Runway alignments based on multiple parallel runways on the existing alignment. Plans have previously been produced for a four runway airport on the site, and given these have been widely published need no further explanation. Significantly the airport is in a rural location to enable 24 hour operation, can expand upon existing infrastructure, could be expanded to six runways if it were ever required, is sited on a potential North South high speed rail corridor between London and Cambridge, the East Midlands, Yorkshire, the North East and Edinburgh, has excellent motorway connections to London, has an existing railway connection to London and further afield, and has an existing community servicing the airport.

3.2 Connectivity (See Stansted Attachment)

3.2.1 Initially the existing train connection from Liverpool Street Station via Tottenham Hale would continue, however the geographic position of Stansted could allow it to be incorporated into a new High Speed railway line (e.g. HS3) that replaces or supplements the East Coast Main line linking Edinburgh, Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Peterborough, and Cambridge to London via Stansted. The existing HS1 infrastructure allows for Kings Cross, St Pancras or Liverpool Street to be the dedicated London terminal station, with a connection at Stratford or Stratford International. A dedicated high speed rail route could proceed north from Walthamstow Marshes on elevated piers to traverse the Lee Valley reservoirs (80% of China’s Beijing to Shanghai high speed line is based on this method to minimise costs), then in green tunnels or cuttings west of Epping Forest and Epping and near to the M11 corridor bisecting the airport on a SW, NE axis reusing the existing airport station. The line would then continue via Cambridge and join the East Coast Main Line or any future North South high speed line near Peterborough. The line could also join the Eastern Branch of the HS2 Phase 2 line at Long Eaton between Derby and Nottingham. Many future rail link options therefore exist that could enable direct links from many of the Eastern towns and cities of the UK to the airport, and also Birmingham via a more circuitous route. Once a decision on the location of the new London hub airport is made then many of these options will become more viable.

3.2.2 New motorway connections may also be required, such as a link from the M40 near Bicester to Stansted via Toddington services on the A1(M) and Stevenage on the M1. Such a scheme may be deemed necessary regardless of the new airport given the population increases expected and the single orbital route around London being heavily congested, and some of this work could be based on the expansion of existing trunk road upgrades and alignments such as the A421 between the M40 and M1 or the A41 and A414 between the M40 and Harlow near the M11. Creeping road development seems to have been accepted, however flagging in advance a full motorway or expressway traversing the Home Counties may be unacceptable and make the M25 overly congested increasing journey times to the airport.

Existing Connectivity via:

Greater Anglia Trains to London

Cross Country Trains to Cambridge, Ely, Peterborough, Leicester and Birmingham

M11

Possible Future Connectivity

HS3 – London, Stansted, Cambridge, Peterborough for ECML, or Peterborough to Long Eaton for HS2 4. New Coastal Sites

4.1 The proposed Isle of Grain site is a viable airport option; however it does come with the downside that a significant proportion of passengers, cargo, and airport workers will likely need to travel across London. Any announcement of the go-ahead of the project would provide business and workers many years advance notice of relocation. It has the potential to have more than four runways and could allow for unconstrained growth for many years. However almost all originating passengers who drive to the airport are likely to cause increasing congestion on the M25 which may require M25 widening from Sevenoaks to Reigate and a relief motorway from Reigate to the M4 via Dorking, Guildford, and Bagshot which is unlikely to be popular. An alternative would be to retain a dedicated car park on the Heathrow site for passengers to take a / HS1 link to the airport, with significantly reduced fare options reserved for passengers going to the airport.

5 New Inland sites

5.1 Suitable new sites do exist that could accommodate a hub airport with four or more runways, however it is likely that political protests may prevent such sites getting to the construction stage. Options include:

5.2 White Waltham (Berkshire)

Runway alignment of 120/300 degrees. Overflies Windsor Great Park at SE, and avoids Henley at NW.

Main advantage is close to current site, industry, population centres, and transport infrastructure yet avoids London and large population centres on approach and departure.

Connectivity via:

Great Western line passes site.

M4 traverses site.

Direct HS2 Spur may be possible via southerly route from west side of Aylesbury, enabling links to the North.

5.3 Cublington (Buckinghamshire)

Runway alignments of 100/280 degrees to avoid aircraft on ILS approaches overflying Dunstable and Luton.

Connectivity via:

New West Coast Main Line loop

New West Varsity line loop Near M1, A41

5.4 Emmington (Oxfordshire)

Runway alignments of 060/240 degrees to parallel the North side of the Chiltern Hills and avoid Aylesbury and Thame over flights

Connectivity via:

New Chiltern Line loop

Re-instatement of Princess Risborough, Thame, Oxford line through site.

New HS2 loop

Near M40

6. Conclusion

6.1 Heathrow is fundamentally limited by its’ tightly confined surface area for expansion and noise footprint. Unless the ban on 24 hours operations can be effectively lifted by allowing at least the two new and most westerly runways to be available for both take off and landing during the period from 2200hrs to 0600hrs then full flexibility remains compromised. The airport would continue to operate sub- optimally as it has been forced to do by restrictions on night time operation, and has thus far caused it to lose its status and effectiveness as a hub, clearly in evidence by the reduced number of connection destinations it offers versus other European national hubs. This restricted operation cannot be acceptable any more when the asset is worth tens of billions of pounds, and so any new airport on the site must be allowed to operate without restriction throughout the day. Whichever airport is eventually chosen then the UK cannot build it in isolation of the requirement to integrate it into the wider new high speed rail network and motorway network. Any airport expansion without any associated land transport infrastructure development would be a recipe for continuation of the UK’s recent history if un-integrated public transport.

6.2 Gatwick has not been suggested as a solution as it fits somewhere in between Heathrow and Stansted in terms of noise disturbance. It is an excellent airport, with the most efficient air traffic controllers of the almost 100 airports I have operated into, however the choice should be between expanding the largest asset we already have ie Heathrow, or expansion of an existing asset that has the lowest associated noise disturbance, ie Stansted.

6.3 If noise disturbance to around 1 million London residents is regarded by government as acceptable, then Heathrow is the best solution. If the government has the willpower to allow a fully flexible 24hour airport operation at Heathrow, then the airport could be operating 4 runways earlier than Stansted, and benefit from the existing infrastructure that is already in place. An HS2 spur should be constructed immediately after HS2 phase 1 construction is finished, and so be ready within one year of the 2026 opening of HS2 phase 1. Land corridor rights should also be sought to connect the line to Southampton to facilitate north to South Coast rail connections thus relieving London rail termini and speeding up journey times to the airport. Delaying the spur until the HS2 phase 2 opening would inhibit transport access and restrict passenger’s selection of the airport for their travel plans. Any airport should be fully integrated into the wider and greener transport infrastructure, and be done so as quickly as possible, and on the basis that it doubles up to provide other connectivity, that is an HS3 line through Stansted or an HS1 spur to Southampton through Heathrow.

6.4 However if noise disturbance is to be minimised by developing an existing site then Stansted is more appropriate, and over time Stansted can be more effectively integrated into the UK’s north-south railway infrastructure in a way that can create new railway transport options for the UK nationally, and regionally benefit the high tech innovation centre of Cambridge. Connection times to the Midlands and North East could be dramatically improved. If the government does not have the willpower to allow a fully flexible 24hour airport operation, it must choose Stansted with a minimum of 4 runways, while preserving land protection for an additional two, and close Heathrow outright, redeveloping the Heathrow site to a world leading hub for innovation and technology, which in itself could be one of the main drivers of UK growth. But that must happen quickly, unlike other stalled redevelopments such as Battersea Power station. The geographic position of Stansted enables it to be integrated into the UK’s north-south rail network, increasing the attractiveness of UK travellers to fly through the UK hub, rather than other European or Middle-Eastern airports. Although a three runway airport could operate with the existing rail infrastructure, any further expansion would need the increased rail capacity that would be offered by the completion of a high speed north-south railway through the site.