1 Introduction 1.1 As a Civil Airline Pilot Who Currently Operates From

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 Heathrow Airport’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.

Load more