Gatwick second* runway

[AlastairFraser]

I doubt that MAG is going to do that just to allow a competitor to gain more traffic.

Eh, MAG always like money.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Eh, MAG always like money.

But MAG would have to pay for a temporary extension at Stansted...

 

[AlastairFraser]

But MAG would have to pay for a temporary extension at Stansted...

Potentially with funding from Gatwick's owners...

 

[YorkRailFan]

Potentially with funding from Gatwick's owners...

Just for however long it takes to move Gatwick's runway, you think that MAG and Gatwick would invest into expanding Stansted's terminal?

 

[Ken X]

There is only one A380 stand at Gatwick. It was Gate 110 on Pier 6. When the Pier 6 extension was begun the gate was removed and a gate on Pier 5 rebuilt as the A380 stand. Emirates were flying three A380s a day into the Gatwick, early morning, midday and evening. They were spun quickly so there was never more than one aircraft on the ground at one time. In fact, other aircraft used the gate in the gaps. I would not expect the moving of the auxiliary runway to impact normal operations.
Occasionally another A380 would drop in for a splash and dash. Etihad did this going to Heathrow apparently to avoid arriving on minimum fuel or if there was a delay at Heathrow one would drop in but they parked on remote stands and soon departed again. As these aircraft are now starting to be scrapped and no more built, I don't expect any more stands will be built. It's quite an undertaking as it affects check-in areas, the stand seating area, airbridges and reclaim belts as well as the apron.

 

[Dr_Paul]

I've long wondered if, rather than upgrading the former parallel taxiway, there have been plans to build a parallel runway a few hundred yards to the south. Looking at the Google Earth (clip attached), it seems to me that the land to the south of the airport has been kept more or less free of development, rather like the way that nothing much has been built north of the A4 parallel to Heathrow, to enable a new runway to be built without having to demolish many buildings.

 

[Ken X]

I've long wondered if, rather than upgrading the former parallel taxiway, there have been plans to build a parallel runway a few hundred yards to the south. Looking at the Google Earth (clip attached), it seems to me that the land to the south of the airport has been kept more or less free of development, rather like the way that nothing much has been built north of the A4 parallel to Heathrow, to enable a new runway to be built without having to demolish many buildings.

I understand that in the BAA days they owned all the buildings along the South side and all sorts of plans were produced for second runways. What the current situation is I have no idea.

Having said that, many years ago at Heathrow, before Terminal 5 was started, I was looking at a rather lovely model of Terminal 6.

Times change, and plans with them.

 

[Bald Rick]

I've long wondered if, rather than upgrading the former parallel taxiway, there have been plans to build a parallel runway a few hundred yards to the south. Looking at the Google Earth (clip attached), it seems to me that the land to the south of the airport has been kept more or less free of development, rather like the way that nothing much has been built north of the A4 parallel to Heathrow, to enable a new runway to be built without having to demolish many buildings.

Yes that was the plan. There’s a wikipedia page devoted to it, that is pretty accurate.

Expansion of Gatwick Airport - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On 23 July 2013, Gatwick unveiled its proposals for a second runway to the south of the existing runway and airport boundary. If approved, the new runway could open by 2025 and cost between £5 billion and £9 billion, depending on the option chosen – i.e., a new runway 3,395 ft (1,035 m) south of the existing runway, a new runway less than 3,395 ft (1,035 m) but more than 2,493 ft (760 m) south of the existing runway or a new runway less than 2,493 ft (760 m) south of the existing runway.[11] The first option would allow both runways to be simultaneously used for takeoffs and landings and increase total runway capacity by more than 80% to up to 100 aircraft movements per hour. It would also increase the airport's annual maximum passenger capacity from the present 45 to 87 million. The second option would allow both runways to be used simultaneously as well, with one handling takeoffs and the other landings. This would increase total runway capacity by ca. 36% to about 75 aircraft movements per hour and result in an increase in annual maximum passenger capacity to 82 million. The third option would allow only one runway to be used at a time but would still increase total runway capacity by over 20% to at least 67 aircraft movements per hour and annual maximum passenger capacity to 66 million.[12][13] Regardless of the option chosen, the total projected cost includes the cost of a third terminal next to the existing railway line.[14]