Second airport rises again

[Owen H]

Sydney already uses mixed mode...

[Chris Q]

Expanding airports/new airports and race tracks (RIP Oran Park) - dying breed in NSW thanks to all the new suburbs being created !

Williamtown would be a good one to expand on - I prefer the drive to Newcastle airport rather than Sydney from the Central Coast ha!

[Andi O]

Heathrow rate is currently 80 movements per hour, the SAME as the cap at Sydney. It would be near impossible to increase the rate above that as it takes up to 90 seconds for an aircraft to land and clear the runway and that will never get much quicker with the current generation of aircraft.
The reason why Heathrow has double the movements of Sydney is that 80 per hour is used in every hour of available ops whereas Sydney only use it in 3 maybe 4 hours a day.
Without doing the whole maths "mixed mode" increases the movements slightly as instead of 90 seconds bewteen arrivals, you make it 150 seconds and squeeze in a departure. Of course, by doing that you would most ceratinly increase the rate of "go arounds" too!

[Jarden S]

Plus Heathrow does not have a night curfew (only restrictions) which allows for far more flights than SYD. What I recorded when plane spotting many a day at the observation deck at Heathrow they were getting arrivals every 70 seconds so that will enable it to get a few extra flights in each hour. Those controllers can pack them in tight in the airspace over London. But the queue at the departure runway would be always 7-9 aircraft some had a fairly long wait for there turn. This would go down only after a runway change. The cross taxiway to T4 was busy with a queue at times too, but one aircraft would cross as soon as one aircraft had landed, pilots would have to act quickly when told to proceed by ATC.

[Matt D]

Heathrow works to just under 9300/slots per week. At night they operate on noise quota restrictions that effectively operate as a curfew from 11:30pm to 6am. The quota system allows a limited number of arrivals before 6am

That's an average of 80 movements/hr for every operating hour. But they are not constrained to 80 movements/hr, just an average of 80/hr. They can get in the range of 120 movements/hr on two runways.

Heathrow's layout allows for better acft flow than Sydney:

1) two long parallel runways
2) many more high speed exits
3) a better terminal/taxiway/runway config
4) a better terminal layout - toaster rack style (T5 and T2), rather than dead ends where a pushed back acft blocks inbounds
5) The stack management allows tighter sequencing of groups of like arrivals (groups of mediums followed by groups of heavies)
6) Doesn't have to accomodate turboprops (people can catch trains for these distances)
7) Numerous runway entrance options (rather than just A6 on 34L, for eg)

This allows average runway occupancy times of only 41sec for departures and 56sec for arrivals.

In turn this allows a tight sequence of arrivals and departures making it able to avg 80/hr but push closer to 120/hr at times

M

[Jason H]

Saw this interesting video last week on ATC at Heathrow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLNbY...layer_embedded

[Jarden S]

Thanks Matt for the useful info. Yes Heathrow has learned to cope a lot longer than SYD with extreme traffic movements. Investment in nearly every possible improvement was made except for a third runway to help speed up traffic flows. So in short SYD is in no way prepared yet to increase its handling capacity. They should invest more in non-retail activities. But there is no rate of return in it for the accountants. The toaster rack style is a new term I not hear before for a terminal layout I like it...

[Jarden S]

Found a good article on this topic, they will not be lifting the cap:

Transport minister Anthony
Albanese has refused to be drawn
on a timeframe for a decision on
Sydney’s second airport despite
warning additional capacity will
be needed “sooner rather than
later”.
Albanese said delays will worsen
at Sydney as growth continues.
There were applications this year
for flights exceeding the 80-slot
maximum for seven different hours
during the operational day, against
only four hours last year, he said.
“That reflects the growth,”
Albanese said. “Already we know
there are more people who want to
fly into Sydney Airport than the
capacity will grant.”
But the minister reiterated there
will be “no shift in the curfew or
the cap in movements on my watch
at Sydney Airport”.
“What is not a solution is a
removal of either the curfew or
the cap which are constraints that
have been put legitimately around
Sydney Airport,” he said.
A report into Sydney’s airports
needs – a report independent of
Government or party politics - is
in the process of being written and
will be completed in the second
half of the year, Albanese said.
But he refused to speculate on a
timeframe for any decision.
“It is appropriate that there is a
considered response to this rather
than a series of announcements
in which there are chopping and
changing. We need to receive
the report, consider it and
have discussions between the
Commonwealth and the NSW
Government,” he said.
With the exception of Badgerys
Creek, all locations for an airport
will be considered, he added,
including Newcastle. “It’s up to the
committee (producing the report)
but certainly what they’re looking
at in great detail is the sites. That’s
the job they’ve been given,” he said

http://www.travelweekly.com.au/getat...1d67d/pdf.aspx

[Nigel C]

Well, it's certainly not a solution if Mr Albanese wants to retain his federal seat at the next election.

What this whole debate needs is a federal transport minister whose electorate does NOT lie underneath an existing flightpath, and who is willing and able to see both sides of the argument equally. Then, and only then, might we see a balanced discussion and a reasonable outcome to this long-term debarcle.

[Shayne G]

Nigel, you hit the nail right on the head!