Should Gatwick be allowed to expand?

[Jerry]

Some press reports suggest that both airports will be given the green light for an additional runway. How much public funding would apply to LHR and LGW is open to question.

I would've thought that LGW 3rd runway would require less funding as it would be cheaper and might get a bigger percentage of private funding to public funding and may be seen as a better short term investment because there would be less legal hassle. But then i may wrong!😆

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I would've thought that LGW 3rd runway would require less funding as it would be cheaper and might get a bigger percentage of private funding to public funding and may be seen as a better short term investment because there would be less legal hassle. But then i may wrong!😆

I'm sure you're right about it being cheaper (than Heathrow) but a new runway at LGW will probably take some public funding and the LHR cost, said to be many billions but no-one can accurately estimate the true cost, won't be any less expensive to build because Gatwick is getting a new runway too.

 

[Coathanger16]

Whilst it is true that a new runway at Gatwick would be cheaper than a new runway at Heathrow, the "easy bit" ends there.

Every MP around Gatwick has come out against its expansion - this is about 8 MP's but isn't picked up on by the media because none of them are cabinet ministers or have run for London Mayor.

Gatwick will also face legal challenges if it is chosen:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37666796

Whilst I have nothing against Gatwick having a second runway I foresee 2 major problems:

Firstly, the majority of airlines at Gatwick are low cost carriers. Any expansion there will lead to an increase in pax charges. The airlines won't absorb that extra cost so it will be passed onto the passengers. The commission predicted that at peak, pax charges could rise from £9 to £30. Any extra passenger charges will more likely affect passengers at Gatwick than those at Heathrow as the later already pay higher charges and aren't generally going for the cheapest option.

The second problem is that even if Gatwick were to build a second runway, Heathrow would still be full. It may just be the airlines trying to persuade government to do what they want, but no airline at Heathrow has said they will move to an expanded Gatwick. You need to remember that all the posturing about extra airport capacity in the South East has never really been about providing extra capacity for the South East, but how to address capacity at Heathrow.

As such there are 3 options going forwards:

If we "need" (desire) a hub airport in the UK then either Heathrow needs to be expanded or a new 4 runway airport needs to be built.

The third option is if we do not "need" (or desire) a hub airport. In this case, the best way forward would be to create multiple equally sized airports around London. As Heathrow blights many people with noise it would be closed and new runways be built at Gatwick, Stansted and Luton.

In my opinion, no option requires that just Gatwick has a new runway. Additionally, I find it unlikely that Stansted and Luton owners would be able to fund such expansion at their sites and therefore would require government funding, at least for surface access. A new airport would require huge amounts of government funding, and considering people are already against spending £50bn on a high speed rail than spans a good part of the country, would anyone really expect people to support spending an equal amount of money on an airport in the South East. Whilst the cost of Heathrow may seem high compared to Gatwick, in my opinion that is a false choice for the reasons stated above. This leaves Heathrow as actually being the cheapest overall option.

 

[Coathanger16]

It has been reported in recent weeks that the government has asked Gatwick to examine whether additional capacity could be provided there without a new runway.

Is there anyway that the current shorter unused runway be used in a dependent operations mode to provide extra capacity (i.e. use one for take off the other for landing, but where the aircraft taking off isn't cleared to take off until the aircraft has landed on the landing runway).

I've always found it ironic that Gatwick is pursuing a second runway when the already technically have two.

 

[Jerry]

I've always found it ironic that Gatwick is pursuing a second runway when the already technically have two.

Honestly i never knew that! I just had a look at google maps and they run parallel to each but do seem quite close but i would've thought there would be a way for aircraft to use both safely and the shorter runway could be used for narrow bodies only.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I understand that because of the proximity of the main runway the secondary one cannot be used at the same time which really begs the question, why were the two runways built so close together in the first place?

The second runway seems to be really a de facto taxiway although I believe it can be used as a runway if the main runway is non operational but certain procedures have to be instigated first and, even disregarding its shorter length which clearly rules it out for some aircraft/journeys, the traffic flow is considerably reduced.

I use Gatwick from time to time - the next time will be next week - and so take some interest in it as an airport.

 

[Coathanger16]

I'd suggest taking a look at both San Francisco and Los Angeles airports. The runways at San Francisco are about 170m apart and simultaneous landing and departures are common.

The runways at Gatwick are about 140m apart. It seems like a lot of effort, but if the shorter runway was moved north by 30m, I don't see why some kind of simultaneous arrivals/departures could happen.

why were the two runways built so close together in the first place?

Very valid question! I don't know when they were built. Perhaps the longer runway was built to allow larger aircraft, but had to be built very close so as to get around the no runways pledge they'd made with the local council.

 

[blotbuc1]

I believe the secondary runway was originally the taxiway and was widened and upgraded when the main runway needed to be closed for an extended period for improvement works/major maintenance. Hence their close proximity and its use only when the main runway is unavailable.