|
   |
Home >> Forum >> HEATHROW T5 Civil aviation forum
HEATHROW T5
Return to the forum index - Post a message for this thread
| |
Message of Boeing Boy Nat - Sent 08 Oct 19:21 |
|
| |
Heathrow Terminal 5 has been in the news recently. In the Daily Mail they were showing exclusive pictures of the terminal. They have 65 escolators and 105 lifts that will transport people between floors. There is estimated 80,000 tonnes of steel used in the building.
Any ideas of what year and date its going to be open?
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 09 Oct 1:11 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 09 Oct 1:11 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of SJR - Sent 09 Oct 19:48 |
|
| |
lol. I am not sure on the toilets but i can say this. Since openskies is starting in March when BA should have moved to T5 i am guessing it will be early in 2008 although i dont think the whole terminal will be open straight away.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of Boeing Boy Nat - Sent 10 Oct 18:13 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of SJR - Sent 10 Oct 20:00 |
|
| |
Im going to go out on a limb here and say it has more toilets than any other airport terminal in the world. I will also say this to BAA. Its all well and good building a new terminal but what you really need is a minimum of one new runways, preferably two.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of citation - Sent 11 Oct 22:56 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 11 Oct 0:03 |
|
| |
Just hope they have got soft loo roll. Hehehe. Sorry about that I couldn't resist it. I guess open skies means that T5 has a convertible roof so on sunny days they can open the roof hence saving on air conditioning and keep the smelly bogs fresh with jet eaxhaust fumes God I love that sell. Sorry I am in a good mood today.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 11 Oct 11:52 |
|
| |
citation:
Not an expert in Euro airline deregulation but I think Openskies is a pan-EU agreement with the U.S. effective fm 08. Basically, any U.S. or EU airlines can fly internationally between any U.S. and EU airports free fm almost all existing airport access rights restrictions. It overrides all current agreements including Bermuda II(Bi-lateral between UK and U.S.) re LHR. It means, e.g., AF, LH, KL, etc. can start flying LHR-JFK and BA can do CDG-JFK, FRA-JFK, AMS-JFK, etc. Bottom line is tons of new traffic by existing and new airlines @ LHR starting fm 08.
SJR:
I hv seen the exterior photos of LHR T5 and therefore hv a sense of its true size. I'll be extremely surprised if it actually has more toilets than any single mega-terminal @ BKK, HKG, PEK(T3), NRT, SIN, KUL, ICN, etc. I can believe LHR T5 has more toilets than any airports in Europe but Europe is not the whole world, is it?
Also, may I know where do U suggest LHR should locate any new rwys without igniting major anti-gov't civil unrest in its surrounding neighbourhood? Don't underestimate this powerful neighbourhood as it's effectively 1 of the main root causes that drive the most advanced aircraft engine noise suppression tech(e.g. Costly redesign was needed for the Trent900 on A380 due to LHR's new noise restrictions) today. Can't exactly build rwys over people's homes @ the low level airspace too......
speedbird9468:
Seriously, it's a great concept. However, why not going back to the basics and do it with no big terminal structure at all? Put all facilities on the tarmac/apron directly and park aircrafts right nex to them. Think about the huge reduction in power consumption for the a/c system and LHR becoming the most environmentally friendly airport in the world(Yes, the whole world, not just Europe). When it rains/snows, just electonically extend a gigantic canvas canopy above the entire T5 area. Some new major terminals(e.g. DEN, BKK) are already using canvas/fabric-type materials for the roof so it's not really an unproven tech.
Just 1 tiny inconvenience: Pax may freeze to death in such a set-up during the harsh British winter.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of SJR - Sent 11 Oct 21:03 |
|
| |
I never said it would be easy to put new runways at LHR. Yes i see your point but since i have only travelled through Europe i havent seen any other monster terminals such as this.
To be honest LHR should have been closed replaced by somewhere that had room to grow. Say somewhere in the Thames Estuary where there are few growing problems. As for the decision to build T5 that was stupid. ah well i am sure LHR will find a way to build new runways.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 11 Oct 21:12 |
|
| |
Hi FLX.
You could always start a couple of 380 engines for PAX to get warm LOl. No really but if anyone has flown of of SCL they will know that it has an open Atrium in the departure lounge. As for the runway problem 2 won't be enought so we might see BA laying on coach services to places like BOH SOU etc etc for some routes that could be a pain in the preverbials
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of Werkur737 - Sent 12 Oct 22:49 |
|
| |
Not a LHR customer, me, but asking...when BA has the A380, how many can be fingered at T5? I'm sure LHR will find out how to build a new runway, besides the problems.
AIRFLEETS.NET STAFF
PHOTO SCREENER
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of citation - Sent 12 Oct 23:15 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of SJR - Sent 12 Oct 10:23 |
|
| |
Two new runways would be enough to prevent most of the delays particularly with bad weather. However i would expect for any significant growth of the airport it to need another runways on top of that. Since this seems so impossible with the current situation are there no places they can build new runways like they did in Amsterdam with the Polderbahn. You know the one that takes at least 15 minutes to taxy from the closest terminal too. Maybe have them taxy through local towns lol until there is open country! Only kidding!
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 12 Oct 11:47 |
|
| |
SJR, Werkur737:
Looking @ the airport overview photos, it's easy to see how 'boxed-in' LHR is by urban encroachments fm ALL directions. I seriously doubt there is any land to build even just taxiways with sufficient wingspan clearance(Let alone rwys) beyond the current airfield perimeters unless they take out a few trunk motorways - a nearly impossible endeavour.
I believe LHR rwy congestion isn't a recent phenomonon. It has been around for at least 1-2 decades. If they've a solution to build additional rwys, they would hv done it long time ago before even more urban development popped up around LHR during these 1-2 decades.
LHR can still squeeze a bit of capacity growth incrementally and reduce some congestion via 3 feasible approaches:
1) Infrastructure:
Development like T5, redevelop all existing terminals, replace all major maintainance(e.g. BA's)+cargo facilities with more pax terminals
2) Operation:
Kick out/divert all remaining cargo flights to other London airports, enforcing min aircraft size restriction schemes similar to what FAA is planning for JFK & LGA.
3) Major tech upgrade:
Immediately dump the ILS based systems and adopt the state-of-the-art microwave+GPS based digital landing system that safely allow less spacing between each landing, adopt 'free flight' - a satelite based nav system that allow infinite number of departure routes(Most modern airliners are already compatible with such system).
All 3 approaches will not provide a quantum leap in capacity like a new rwy does but they surely can help LHR a great deal. For substantial growth, we've to be realistic that the way forward has little to do with LHR. After all, isn't that why there are LGW, Stansted, Luton and London City? At least London has 5 to play with. New York, on the other hand, only has 3(JFK,LGA and EWR) and Tokyo only has 2(NRT,HND)!
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of SJR - Sent 12 Oct 21:23 |
|
| |
Would they be able to build a runway where T4 is simply by removing the terminal or am i just making daft suggestions here. I realise they would have to do some major road re-routing
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of SJR - Sent 12 Oct 21:28 |
|
| |
The key difference between London and Tokyo, New York is both of those were better thought out than LHR. When the decision was made to build T4 and T5 the decision was one sided they should have looked at building a new airport in the Thames. It would solve the problem and it could be made to replace LHR and LGW and still have capacity left. The other alternatives at LHR are much more difficult to approach hence why nothing has yet happened.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 15 Oct 0:56 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 15 Oct 11:57 |
|
| |
SJR:
Given that U suggested here to build a new London airport near Thames, I assume your opinion is effectively consistent with my view:
Substantial growth has little to do with the curent LHR itself
My own theory only - BAA(Or whoever manage LHR) may purposely limiting Rwy capacity of LHR.
A strategy to ensure all traffics to/fm LHR are fm the 'premium segment'. 1st, each airlines hv no choice but to maximize return per LHR slot by focusing on premium routes/services/pax. 2nd, look @ how much space/investment they devote LHR to retailing - primary reason for those large/fancy new terminals. 3rd, given the congestion, pax tend to arrive for check-in much much earlier than @ other airports around the world. Longer waiting time equals to more retailing potential to premium customers. Frankly, LHR terminals are becoming more like a gigantic Duty-Free shopping mall with a supplementary pax handling Op.....20-30 yrs ago, it was the other around.
In terms of airport planning, NYC and Tokyo are not far behind London in terms of 'messing-it-up'.
In NYC, both EWR and LGA are as 'boxed-in' as LHR with no room to extend existing rwys, let alone a new rwy. JFK is located nex to open sea so it has better potential to build new rwys. However, because LGA and JFK are practically 10 mins drive fm each other, they're already out of airspace. Therefore, any new JFK rwys won't be much help. Finally, all NYC airports hv a unique problem LHR doesn't really hv: More smaller aircrafts(e.g. RJs) with fewer pax per slot.
In Tokyo, NRT was opened in 77 with two 4km long rwys planned but only got their 2nd rwy(Less than 2.3km long, insufficient for the take-offs of almost all Inter-continental flights) a few yrs ago due to ultra-strong oppositions(Including riots, suicide bombings, etc.) fm local residents. Go check its history and U'll know NRT was more like a war zone than 1 of the richest country's premier gateway especially before 90 and not much better afterwards due to anti-expansion lawsuits. Trust me, NRT embarasses the Japanese gov't a lot more than LHR does to the British gov't. HND currently has 2 rwys and it faces open sea so like JFK, more rwys can be built which they're doing now(Latest one operational in 09). However, this requires tech difficult & ultra-expensive(Japan has 1 of the highest gov't debt in the world) landfill/reclaimation that must be earthquake-proof upto certain point. Also, HND is THE busiest airport in Asia-Pcf but almost exclusively devoted to domestic traffic only. Any new rwy capacity is expected to be used-up pretty rapidly.
speedbird9468:
That 'big wheel' to be used as a catapult will hv to be 1 of the biggest engineering challenge in the world. After all, we're not talking about throwing a F/A18E off a carrier's deck. It'll hv to be powerful enough for the take-off of a fully loaded A388 here.....
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of SJR - Sent 15 Oct 16:09 |
|
| |
One thing that they could do. To build the new runway what is the width it would have to be. Say about the width of the M25 and then some. So why dont they put it where the M25 is and tunnel the M25 underneath. Or would that not be possible. They would also have to put the M4 underground of course and a few other motorways but as Boston proved it is do able
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 16 Oct 23:36 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of citation - Sent 16 Oct 1:57 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 16 Oct 6:03 |
|
| |
SJR:
Technically feasible. Current space used for M25+M4 is likely to be sufficiently long+wide for new rwys and putting those motorways directly underneath is definitely doable. Like BOS, current NRT and the old HKG(Kai Tak) both have roadways built in long tunnels directly under their rwys.
Politically & environmentally, it'll most likely be a disaster. Who will accept living/doing non-aviation business less than 100m away fm the perimeter fences of a new active rwy with a BA 744 running @ full thrust upon take-off every 5 mins or so?
speedbird9468:
Installing floats on airliners effectively turn them into modern equivalents of those classic & grand float planes BOAC and Pan Am used to fly all over the world 500 yrs ago(Pardon my exaggeration but that 'exotic' era of aviation feel so far away).....What a nostalgic & romantic idea! Retro is so trendy these days......
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of SJR - Sent 16 Oct 12:04 |
|
| |
I ment for the Thames Estuary to build a airport like Kansai although i understand this would be very expensive we dont have the same problems with earthquakes so it wont be as expensive as Kansai on the scale although the fact it would be bigger would obviously mean it did.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 18 Oct 16:56 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of Boeing Boy Nat - Sent 18 Oct 18:24 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 19 Oct 16:27 |
|
| |
you'd get used to it. Plus I would love it. In addition I would be jealous. Imagine jumbos and A380's on final flying under the dartford bridge. That would be fun to watch. Have to fit the bridge with big airbags incase of scrapes to the plane could bounce of and be ok.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of SJR - Sent 19 Oct 21:18 |
|
| |
I live under approaches for Manchester Ringways runways 05's. Sadly they dont use 05's often so i dont see aircraft landing very often and departures are harder to see. For landings they come over my house for 05R at 700ft and for 05L they pass nearby at 1300ft. Guess which i prefer.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 23 Oct 12:40 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of SJR - Sent 23 Oct 15:58 |
|
| |
Its also the closer one. Currently i am watching 05R approaches and just for some strange reason had Sunwing B738 C-FTAE come past. Probably something to do with its summer period with XL Airways U.K.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 24 Oct 10:54 |
|
| |
With Open Skies, T5 does make the anticipated longer wait/delay @ LHR more pleasant for pax. Other than that, it won't improve the worsening air traffic congestion @ LHR.
All ideas I hv read/posted on this thread so far offer no feasible solution to significantly add Rwy capacity to LHR. May be London does need a new airport or at least promote usage/expand capacity @ LGW,Stansted and Luton for significant growth.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of SJR - Sent 24 Oct 16:51 |
|
| |
To make that successful they would need to have high speed trains linking them up for connecting passengers. They would also need high speed lines direct to London. The best option would probably be to build a new airport but since they have built new structures at LHR this is no longer an option. The motorway idea would work as a new runway the issue is that the motorway is not level with the airport, the motorway would need to be replaced and there would still be no way for aircraft to get between the main airport and the new runway. I know something needs to be done but i cant think of a way that it can be done. Glad i am not part of the LHR planning team because all of them should have been fired years before this problem occured.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 25 Oct 8:24 |
|
| |
SJR:
I think I hv mentioned this a few times before on this thread but may I know how do U think the environmental lobbists and the surrounding neighbourhood of that motorway will react to such an idea to build new rwy+taxiways for LHR? On top of that U hv even more neighbourhoods that will, for the 1st time, live directly under the approach/departure path @ both ends of that new rwy.
With $ and the latest construction tech, U can solve tech problem such as elevation differentials. In contrast, people's voices and more importantly, votes, cannot be ignored in any modern democracy and are much much harder to deal with.
This is why I said even the motorway idea would NOT work.
Compare to the cost+environmental impact of building a completely new LHR replacement(e.g., @ the estuary), what do U think will be the cost+environmental impact of building/upgrading rail networks that provide highspeed link between all London major airports+city center? I'm no expert in Transportation Cost Benefit Analysis but my hunch is that the rail option has MUCH lower cost+impact. LGW already hv rail link to the city center and upgrading it requires almost no new real estate. For Luton+Stansted, fully automated highspeed elevated rail system can easily be built and is extremely low impact. Such systems hv been operating elsewhere for 2-3 decades so the tech is very mature+affordable now.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of SJR - Sent 25 Oct 12:56 |
|
| |
Im not even sure that having trains the speed of the TGV would affect demand for LHR. The other alternative would obviously be to expand one of the other airports to replace LHR. My personal take would be that Gatwick would be the best option but before it could happen they would need to construct two to three new runways. What ever they choose to do it need to be done extremely soon.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 26 Oct 22:12 |
|
| |
ok ok we all need ideas for LHR to have another runway. Well to be honest LHR have had this under their hat for a long time. And, to be honest its a great idea that noone has thought of ( well maybe). Their gonna make all the aircraft types VTOl. That way they could just hovver into the gates instead of using the the runways. Finally a solution
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 26 Oct 7:53 |
|
| |
speedbird9468:
I swear I'll fly only on Airbus products forever when the day comes where a 388 or its successor can do VTOL before Boeing can do the same with 748i or its successor Y3.
SJR:
If LGW is the future, the U.K. gov't better start some planning/prep work quickly. Current vs 10 yrs old airport overview photos of LGW shown that urban areas hv been encroaching the airport perimeters quickly. It won't take long before the entire LGW is boxed-in by businesses & homes. Let's hope LGW won't repeat the same mistake as LHR.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post a message for this thread
|
|
Messages must be written in english. Messages written in an another language will be deleted.
Post only messages related to the civil aviation, and do not insert any ad. Your IP is logged.
You can custom your text by using the following codes
[B]Your text[/B] : Text in bold
[I]Your text[/I] : Text in italic
[U]Your text[/U] : Text underline
[S]Your text[/S] : Text striketough
To include an Airfleets.net photo, use the code [P]Photo number[/P] |
|