Expansion of Airport Capacity

at London Heathrow Airport

Milan Janic
airport airside area consists of airspace around the airport called the
airport zone or terminal airspace and the ground part including runways, taxiways, and the apron and gate complex (79). Figure 1 illustrates a simplified two-dimensional scheme of an airports landside
and airside areas.
There are different concepts of airport capacity. Each concept usually expresses capacity as the maximum number of units of demand
that can be accommodated at an airport during a given period of time
under given constraints (10, 11). In the airside area, demand is the air
traffic movements (ATM), namely, arrivals and departures. In the
landside area, demand is passengers and freight. The airport capacity can be considered as an operational (1 h) or planning parameter
(1 year) (12, 13).

Civil aviation has been confronted with the problem of matching its
capacity to growing demand long term. This has been a particularly
important issue at some large European and U.S. airports where increasing operational, economic, and, particularly, environmental constraints
have affected expansion and development. The long-term matching of
capacity to demand at London Heathrow Airport in England is discussed.
This analysis includes predicting airport demand relative to annual number of aircraft movements and number of passengers, designing solutions
for providing capacity, and generating scenarios for long-term matching of capacity to demand. The results indicate that until the year 2020
the airport will permanently struggle with congestion both airside and
landside.

Civil aviation has been one of the fastest growing sectors of the
worlds economy. During the period 19912001, passenger and
freight demand increased by an annual average rate of 4.5% and 5.7%,
respectively (1). Despite disruptive events such as economic and
political crises; the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United
States; regional wars (Iraq); and the recent appearance of the severe
acute respiratory syndrome virus in Southeast Asia, which have temporary undermined expected growth, air transport planners continue
to believe in the systems long-term recovery. Some predictions for
the next two decades indicate that the worlds air passenger and
freight demand, as well as that in Europe, will grow by an average
annual rate of 4% to 5% and 5.5% to 6.5%, respectively (24).
Currently, busy European and U.S. airports with different operational, economic, and environmental constraints are particularly perceived to affect the expected growth (5). The long-term matching of
capacity to growing demand at these airports appears to be a crucial
planning and policy issue.
Different scenarios and prospective solutions are presented for
the long-term matching of airport capacity to demand at London
Heathrow Airport (England) as one of the busiest airports in Europe
and the world (6).

Operational Capacity
The airport operational capacity mainly depends on operational factors such as safety constraints, constant demand for service, and
average delay per unit of the served demand (14). For operational
purposes, capacity is usually determined for 1 h, including an average
delay per operation. For planning purposes, capacity is determined for
a period of 1 year (8, 12, 13).

Economic Capacity
Airport economic capacity is mainly dictated by short- and longterm economic constraints. In the short term, these are charges of
airport services during peak and off-peak periods, which regulate
demand access, cover the cost of airport services, and reflect the
types of users and their willingness to pay for services (10, 15, 16).
As well, charges should be compatible with International Civil Aviation Organization recommendations and bilateral airspace agreements. In the long term, the availability of investment for airport
infrastructure expansion usually determines the economic conditions
and thus the capacity (10).

AIRPORT SYSTEM
An airport consists of landside and airside areas. The landside area
encompasses the surface-access systems connecting the airport to its
catchment area and the passenger (and freight) terminal system. The

Environmental Capacity
Environmental capacity takes into account the environmental constraints of noise and air pollution intended to protect local people
from the damaging effects of airport operations. In the short term,
environmental capacity is expressed similarly to operational capacity but relative to given types of constraints. In the long term, constraints on land use may compromise airport expansion, capacity,
and growth (6, 10, 17, 18).

OTB Research Institute for the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology,
Jaffalaan 9, 2628 BX, Delft, Netherlands.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 1888, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 714.

Transportation Research Record 1888

London, in southeast England, is one of the busiest air transport

regions in Europe, let alone the world. Five airports operate independently because of the specific demand of business and leisure
passengers and types of air carrier (22). The two largest airports are
London Heathrow and Gatwick. At Heathrow, British Airways
(BA) and its subsidiaries, BAs partners from oneworld alliance and
Star Alliances partners, have about 50% of the market. At Gatwick,
in addition to charters and fast-growing, low-cost carriers such as
Ryanair and easyJet, BA and oneworld alliance also have a market
share of about 53% (22).
At Stansted Airport, charters and low-cost carriers such as Go
(recently taken over by easyJet) and Ryanair have increased demand.
Because of the specificity of this demandpreference for low prices,
dislike of large hubs, and inadequate connectivity to other London
airportsthis airport has developed independently, similarly to Luton
Airport, where low-cost carrier easyJet also has increased business
and leisure passenger demand. Although Luton is connected to
Gatwick by direct rail, there is no evidence of eventual complementary service. At London City Airport, nine regional carriers mainly
serve business passengers. Because of its specific configuration and
location, this airport also operates independently (22).

The environmental constraints at Heathrow are noise and land

use, which affect runway capacity by (a) restricting the use of runways to achieve maximal operational capacity and (b) restricting land
use for physical (spatial) expansion of airport infrastructure outside
of the existing airport area (Figure 1). Heathrow Airport operates
three runways, but two parallel runways are used most of the time in
a segregated mode because of prevailing weather and noise constraints (Cranford agreement). One runway is used for arrivals and
the other for departures, with an hourly capacity of 78 operations and
an annual capacity of 480,000 ATMs, which is a cap established by
the inspector (24). In 2002, the average capacity usage was 97%, but
during some summer weeks, demand for slots was about 20% higher
than capacity.
With an annual capacity of 58 million passengers, the current
passenger terminal complex is already oversaturated. In 2002, the
level of oversaturation reached 9%, which has required modification
of the current four terminals to handle extra demand without significantly compromising quality of service. After about 16 years of public inquiry, the British government has finally approved the building
of the new Passenger Terminal 5 (T5) (6, 13, 24, 25).
As the main British gateway for intercontinental traffic, particularly North Atlantic routes, Heathrow competes with other European
hubs and intercontinental gateways such as Amsterdam Schiphol,
Paris Charles de Gaulle, and Frankfurt Main Airports, which do not
have the severe capacity constraints on expansion as does Heathrow.
This situation may make those airports more attractive in the future.
Some analyses indicate that during the period 19942002, Heathrow
had already been losing about 2% of annual prospective traffic,
mainly because of persistent congestion (26).
The common airport operator, British Airport Authority (BAA),
manages Heathrow together with Gatwick and Stansted Airports,
which may imply coordinated, long-term development, including
usage and provision of spare capacity. However, this does not seem
to be the case.
Currently, Heathrow Airport directly employs about 65,000
persons, which is of great importance to the local economy (21).
Different scenarios are presented for predicting demand, providing solutions for development capacity, and long-term matching
of demand and capacity. These scenarios are based on an analysis of
past and future demand and the most recent ideas and initiatives for
providing capacity. In such a context, the past embraces 19912002
and the future, 20032020.

Establishing a Scenario

Assumptions

As the largest and most important airport in the London area,

Heathrow Airport is particularly relevant for considering scenarios
and solutions for the long-term matching of capacity to growing
demand, for the following reasons:

Several assumptions are made. As the ratio between demand and

capacity for a given period of time (hour, day, year), both airside and
landside, the level of airport saturation is used as an exclusive criterion for decisions about capacity expansion (solution) and its timing.
Relative to the predict-and-provide approach still applied to airports
by the British government, this implies rescinding any current capacity constraint (cap) to accommodate growing demand. For example,
if the current cap of 480,000 ATMs remains in place and if the average number of passengers per ATM is 136, the annual passenger
demand will grow only to about 65 million (24). The new capacity
should match demand on time to diminish the existing, or completely
neutralize the predicted, (over) saturation.
Physical expansion of airport infrastructure is an exclusive option
to cope successfully with long-term, growing demand. This implies
negligible effects of other strategic and tactical measures of demand
management and capacity usage, such as innovative operational

Principles for Long-Term Matching of

Airport Capacity to Demand
Capacity and demand at an airport can be matched by (a) using
advanced operational procedures and technologies, which usually
improve the use of existing airport capacity, and (b) adding new
infrastructure (5, 19). Generally, adding new infrastructure consists of
three phases: (a) planning and design, which usually is based on current and forecasted relationships between demand and capacity and
includes comprehensive assessment of a projects social and economic
feasibility and identifying prospective investors; (b) project decision making, which in many cases is complex and extended public
inquiry; and (c) implementing new infrastructure projects (6, 20, 21).
Implementation of new infrastructure is usually done to prevent or
handle airport system oversaturation.

LONDON HEATHROW AIRPORT

Background

The British government has recently initiated a consultation

about expanding airport capacity in southeast England (as well as the
rest of Britain), in which London airports, particularly Heathrow, are
the focus (6, 20, 21).
In the year 2002, among five London airports, Heathrow had
about 44% of the total number of ATMs, 54% of the total number
of passengers, and 72% of the total volume of freight (23).
In the year 2002 for all of Britain, Heathrow accommodated
14% (466,000) of the total ATMs, 33.4% (about 63 million) of the
total number of passengers, and 58% (about 1.2 million tons) of the
total volume of air cargo (23).

Janic

New runway

New terminal (6)

North runway
Only one type of operations
Terminal 3

Terminal 1

Terminal 5
Terminal 2

South runway
Only one type of operations
Terminal 4

- Airside area

FIGURE 1

- New runway(s)
- Existing runways

- Landside area

- Existing rail connections

- Planned rail connections

Simplified layout of existing and prospective airside and landside areas at London Heathrow Airport (22).

procedures and new technologies, slot reallocation, and congestion

charging.
Predicting demand relative to the number of ATMs and the number of passengers is carried out separately and with an assumption
about the evolution of aircraft size. Up until now, the airport charging policy has encouraged access of larger aircraft, with this trend
assumed to continue in the future (24). There are few reasons to trust
in such development. First, if the lack of slots, slot charging policy,
and charge increases continue so that the number of ATMs stays
within the imposed cap, the airlines will generally continue to use
larger and fuller aircraft so that scarce slots can be used more efficiently. Second, the market share of BA and its oneworld alliances
partners and subsidiaries will tend to increase (above 50%) because
of further, enhanced traffic concentration on the main profitable
routes and increasing number of transfer passengers. In particular,
the new passenger terminal (T5) will enable more efficient and reliable passenger and baggage transfer because the process will be carried out under a single roof. Third, eventual charging of external
costs may remove some British and European short hauls because
of nonprofitability and thus enable more slots for intercontinental
flights operated by larger aircraft (27). Fourth, the forthcoming
superjumbo A380, to be handled at T5, will particularly contribute
to increased aircraft size. Fifth, if access to the airport is going to be
liberalized, particularly for intercontinental North Atlantic traffic
[after eventual negotiating European Union (EU) (U.K.)U.S. open
sky agreements], its market share, including share of larger aircraft,
will certainly increase (27). Sixth, despite an increase in aircraft
size, airlines will continue to compete by frequency of flights as
soon as slots are made available.
The airside and landside capacity can be built independently
according to common practice at many airports.

The capacity of London terminal area airspace relative to number

of ATMs relates to its ability to cope with any capacity expansion
at Heathrow and other London airports.

Past Demand and Capacity

Demand
Past demand at Heathrow Airport was analyzed with data from
19912002 (23). For comparative purposes, the demand at the other
four London airports is also presented. Figure 2 illustrates the past
development.
Demand generally has grown at different rates over the years. In
Figure 2a, the average growth rate of the total annual number of
ATMs at Heathrow Airport has been 2.4%, which is about one-half
of the average growth rate for the five-airport system, 4.8%. As Figure 2b shows, during the same period, the average growth rate of the
annual number of passengers was about 4.2% or about two-thirds of
the corresponding growth rate of the five London airports, 6.1%.
At Heathrow, passenger numbers have been growing at a rate two
times higher than ATM numbers, which implies increasing aircraft
size and load factors during the observed period (23). In 2001, growth
in demand had been negative but recovered in 2002. A decrease in the
number of passengers per ATM was also noticeable, mainly because
of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the overall crisis in
the airline sector.
Figure 2c shows that the average number of passengers per ATM
at Heathrow generally increased over the observed period, from
about 111 in 1991 to about 136 in 2002 (22.5%), which reflects an
average annual increase of about 1.9% and, consequently, the
increase in average aircraft size.

10

Transportation Research Record 1888

Air transport movements - (000)

1000

800

1 - London City
2 - Luton
3 - Stansted
4 - Gatwick
5 - Heathrow
Total 1-5

600

400

200

0
1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002
Year

1998

2000

2002
Year

1998

2000

2002
Year

(a)

Terminal passengers - million

120
100
80

1 - London City
2 - Luton
3 - Stansted
4 - Gatwick
5 - Heathrow
Total 1-5

60
40
20
0
1990

1992

1994

1996
(b)

Average number of passengers per ATM

150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
1990

1992

1994

1996
(c)

FIGURE 2 Development of air transport demand at Heathrow and other four London
airports: (a) ATMs, (b) terminal passengers, and (c) average number of passengers per
ATM (25).

Janic

Capacity
The current operational capacity of two parallel runways at Heathrow
Airport operating in the segregated mode is 78 ATMs/h (28). If the
airport effectively operates at this capacity for 17 h/day for 365 days/
year, the total annual capacity will be at the level of the noise cap
of 480,000 ATMs78 ATMs/h 17 h/day 365 days/year =
480,000 ATMs/year (23, 24).
The projected airport capacity relative to annual number of
passengers (four existing terminals) is about 58 million/year. The
passenger demand reached this capacity in 1997 (22).

Scenarios for Predicting Demand and

Solutions for Providing Capacity
Demand
Two sets of scenarios for predicting demand relative to ATMs and
number of passengers are developed. Scenarios for freight transport
demand are not considered. The first set of scenarios for passenger and
ATM demand contains so-called optimistic or business-as-usual scenarios. Another set contains so-called pessimistic scenarios (6). Both
sets are considered to be the upper and bottom envelope, respectively,
embracing all possible cases of developing demand.
The optimistic scenarios are based on the extrapolation of past
trends, implying that the main demand-driving forces in the future are
the same as in the past. These forces may include continuation of close
dependability of demand and gross domestic product, safeguarding
Londons position as a world city and financial center and its value for
the national and regional economy, further internalization and globalization of the British economy and society, and implementation of
policies to further promote the attractiveness of its airports. One policy could be to rescind the ATM noise cap, liberalize access for nonEU traffic, and further consolidate airline alliances through more
attractive flights, connections, and travel packages (29).
According to the optimistic scenario, the annual demand relative
to ATM is to grow at the same rate as in the past (19912002); that
is, an average rate of 2.4% for 20032020, to about 567,000 in 2010,
638,000 in 2015, and 719,000 in 2020. During the same period, the
annual number of passengers is expected to grow as in the past
(19912002), that is, by an average annual rate of 4.2%, to about
88 million in 2010, 108 million in 2015, and 132 million in 2020.
The pessimistic scenarios are based on the prediction of future
demand by using reduced annual growth rates, which might imply
growth of the matured but persistently congested airport. According
to these scenarios, growth in demand is to slow down because of
policy measures, such as discouraging access for short hauls by
charging externalities, offering compensatory slots at other London
and less-congested British airports (Stansted, Luton, Birmingham,
Manchester), and diverting the induced short-haul demand to surface high-speed transport modes (9, 27). At the same time, the
slowdown in demand growth may come from airport and airline
competition. On one hand, the close European hubs with fewer
capacity problems, such as Amsterdam Schiphol, Paris Charles
de Gaulle, and Frankfurt Main, will continue to compete with
Heathrow. On the other hand, the growth of low-cost carriers such
as Ryanair and easyJet may redirect the newly induced regional
demand from Heathrow to other London airports. Last but not least,
persistent congestion and lack of slots in the future because of the
in-place cap on ATMs may limit existing entrants and deter poten-

11

tial new ones. Consequently, the ATM number would be expected

to grow at an average annual rate of 1.4%, to about 519,000 in 2010,
556,000 in 2015, and 596,000 in 2020 and the annual number of passengers at a rate of 3.0%, to about 79 million in 2010, 91 million in
2015, and 106 million in 2020.
By coupling the corresponding optimistic and pessimistic scenarios, growth rates for the average number of passengers/ATM
(i.e., average aircraft size) of about 1.8% and 1.6%, respectively, are
to be expected. Thus, the optimistic scenario predicts 156 in 2010,
171 in 2015, and 187 in 2020. The pessimistic scenario predicts 154
in 2010, 167 in 2015, and 181 in 2020.

Capacity
Increasing airport capacity in the long term is analyzed, and solutions
for the two sets of scenarios are presented in the most appropriate
order of implementation. Four solutions for increasing runway capacity are presented and two solutions for increasing passenger terminal
capacity.

Runway Capacity
Four solutions for providing runway capacity are as follows:
Solution 0 (doing nothing) assumes that independent of growing demand, the cap on the ATM annual number, which already
accounts for all existing and prospective environmental constraints,
is likely to stay in place (i.e., 480,000 ATMs). In particular, the cap
includes changes in type of operation (arrival or departure) between
the north and south runways at 3 p.m. every day to further reduce
local noise.
Solution 1 (extending airport daily operating time) assumes that
two parallel runways will continue to operate in the segregated mode
with an hourly capacity of 78 ATMs over an extended daily operating time of 18.5 h. If the airport operates 365 days/year, the runway
capacity will increase to about 10%, from the current 480,000 to
526,695 ATMs/year (i.e., 78 ATMs/h 18.5 h/day 365 days/year =
526,695 ATMs/year). However, this solution needs to be negotiated
because the existing cap is rescinded and noise is increased during the
late night and early morning.
Solution 2 (changing runway operating mode and extending
airport daily operating time) includes changing the runway operating mode from segregated to mixed, along with an extension of airport daily operating time. The mixed mode implies that each runway
with a capacity of 48 ATMs/h will be used independently for arrivals
and departures and gives a total hourly capacity of 96 ATMs and an
annual capacity of 648,240 ATMs (8, 13). This is about 35% and
23% higher than the present cap and Solution 1, respectively (2
48 ATMs/h 18.5 h/day 365 days/year = 648,240 ATMs/year).
Nevertheless, despite being operationally straightforward and easy
to implement, this solution implies modification to the present cap
again (19).
Solution 3 (building new runway and extending airport daily
operating time) assumes building a new parallel runway to the north
of the existing two runways (Figure 1) (6). The new runway will
operate in the mixed mode and the existing two parallel runways in
the segregated mode during daily 18.5-h operations, similar to Solutions 1 and 2. Such a three-runway system will provide an hourly
capacity of 126 ATMs (78 + 48 ATMs/h) and an annual capacity of

12

850,815 ATMs (126 ATMs/h 18.5 h/day 365 days/year =

850,815 ATMs/year), which is higher by about 76%, 62%, and 32%
than the present cap, Solution 1, and Solution 2, respectively. However, implementing this solution would require at least 230 ha of
new (agricultural) land and removal of about 260 residential properties outside the present airport area (Figure 1). Certainly more of
the population would be exposed to aircraft noise. This solution also
implies lifting the present ATM cap (6, 10, 30, 31).

Passenger Terminal Capacity

Two solutions for providing passenger terminal capacity are as
follows:
Solution 1 (building new passenger terminal within existing
airport area) is based on the new T5, with an annual capacity of
about 2530 million passengers. This new terminal will increase the
existing four-terminal capacity from 58 million to about 85 million
passengers, or about 47%.
Solution 2 (building new passenger terminal and new runway)
includes building a new passenger terminal for about 40 million
annual passengers and a new (third), parallel runway, which will
operate along with the five terminals in Solution 1 (Solution 3 for
developing runway capacity). This solution will increase the total
annual terminal capacity from 85 million (Solution 1) to 125 million
passengers, or about 47%.

Scenarios for Matching Capacity to Demand

Four solutions for providing runway capacity and two solutions for
providing passenger terminal capacity are as follows.

Runway Capacity
Solution 0 (do nothing)480,000 ATMs,
Solution 1 (extend operating hours)527,000 ATMs,
Solution 2 (mixed mode and extended operating hours)
648,000 ATMs, and
Solution 3 (new runway and extended operating hours)
851,000 ATMs.

Passenger Terminal Capacity

Solution 1 (open T5)85 million passengers
Solution 2 [build Terminal 6 (T6)]125 million passengers
To satisfy ATMs and passenger demands as they progressively
increase at pessimistic and optimistic levels, six scenarios are defined
from the solutions outlined:
Scenario 1
Optimistic or pessimistic traffic demand,
ATM Solution 0 (do nothing), and
Passenger Number Solution 1 (open T5).
Scenario 2
Pessimistic traffic demand,
ATM Solution 1 (extend operating hours), and
Passenger Number Solution 1 (open T5).

Transportation Research Record 1888

Scenario 3
Pessimistic traffic demand,
ATM Solution 2 (mixed mode and extended operating hours),
and
Passenger Number Solution 2 (build T6).
Scenario 4
Optimistic traffic demand,
ATM Solution 1 (extend operating hours), and
Passenger Number Solution 1 (open T5).
Scenario 5
Optimistic traffic demand,
ATM Solution 2 (mixed mode and extended operating hours),
and
Passenger Number Solution 1 (open T5).
Scenario 6
Optimistic traffic demand,
ATM Solution 3 (new runway and extended operating hours),
and
Passenger Number Solution 2 (build T6).
The scenario characteristics, including their implementation year,
are shown in Figure 3. Despite appearing as independent, the scenarios actually are interdependent, because each new scenario originates
from the previous one.

Scenario 1
Figure 3a indicates that if nothing changes from the present, the
runway system capacity relative to ATMs will be saturated in 2003
and 2005, according to the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios of
growing demand, respectively.
Figure 3b indicates that the oversaturation of the current passenger terminal capacity in 2003 will reach 13% and 11%, according to the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios of growing demand,
respectively. In 2005, oversaturation will increase to 23% and 17%,
respectively. T5 implementation in 2007 and 2008 will relieve oversaturation by 33% and 31% for the given scenarios of growing
demand, respectively.
However, if the ATM cap remains, the number of passengers will
be constrained to 65 million, and the terminal capacity of 85 million
passengers (five terminals) will equal 76%. This situation will preserve service quality for the accommodated passengers but will cause
spillage of demand toward other London, British, and close European
competitive airports. In such case, Heathrow growth will cease.

Scenario 2
For the pessimistic scenario of growing demand relative to ATMs,
an extension of the airports daily operational time in 2005 will
increase airport capacity, which will relieve the current saturation and
postpone the next runway system saturation until 2011 (Figure 3a).
At that time, T5 will be in place to accommodate, along with the
other four terminals, the passenger demand of the pessimistic scenario
with a utilization level of about 96% (Figure 3b).

Scenario 3
Changing the runway operating mode and extending airport daily
operating time can take place in 2011 after the capacity gains from

Janic

13

Air transport movements - (000)

840

Demand - Past: + 2.4%

Current capacity
Demand - "Optimistic"
Demand - "Pessimistic"

740

Solution 3
851K ATM

Solution 2
648K ATM

640

Solution 1
527K ATM

540

440

340
1990

Solution 0
480K ATM

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020
Year

(a)

Terminal passengers - million

135

Demand - Past: + 4.2%

Demand - "Optimistic
Demand - "Pessimistic"

Solution 2
Terminal 6: 125M

115

95

Solution 1
Terminal 5: 85M

75

55

Solution 0
Terminals 1-4: 58M
35
1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020
Year

(b)
FIGURE 3 Scenarios for matching capacity to demand at Heathrow Airport: (a) ATMs and
(b) passengers (25).

the previous scenario are exhausted. According to the pessimistic

scenario of increasing ATMs, the next saturation of the runway system will be postponed until 2024 (Figure 3a).
In 2011, T5 will be in place. Figure 3b shows that at that time,
capacity usage for the five terminals will be about 96%. Saturation
of this capacity may be expected in 2013 according to the pessimistic
scenario of growing passenger demand.

the airport capacity and relieve the current saturation and postpone the
next saturation of the runway system until 2007 (Figure 3a).
At that time or one year later, T5 will be operational, which will
immediately relieve the passenger congestion by about 33% according to the optimistic scenario. The passenger terminal capacity will
be at about 90%. However, this new capacity will be saturated again
in 2010 (Figure 3b).

Scenario 4

Scenario 5

For the optimistic scenario of growing demand relative to ATM, an

extension of the airport daily operation time in 2003 will be to increase

For the optimistic scenario of growing relative to ATM, changing the

runway operating mode and extending the airport daily operations

14

time will be implemented in 2007 after the capacity gains are

exhausted according to Scenario 4. The next saturation of runway
system capacity will be postponed until 2015 (Figure 3a).
At the time of implementation of this solution in the airside area (in
the 20072008 time frame), T5 will need to be operational to relieve
the 33% saturation according to the optimistic demand scenario. In
2015, when runway system saturation occurs again, the passenger terminal complex will be oversaturated at about 27% according to the
optimistic scenario of growing demand (Figure 3b).

Scenario 6
To relieve the congestion in Scenario 5, the new runway needs to be
operational in 2015. With regard to current public inquiries, this date
seems to be realistic. Relative to the optimistic scenario of growing
demand as far as ATMs, the new runway will provide sufficient
capacity until 2025 (Figure 3a).
In 2015, the new passenger terminal needs to be operational to
relieve the oversaturation of about 27% according to the optimistic
scenario of growing passenger demand. The new capacity will be
able to relieve the current saturation immediately and postpone the
next saturation until 2019. Actually, implementation of this scenario
will mean incorporating the new, fully developed single runway into
the present airport layout (Figure 3b).

CONCLUSIONS
Two scenarios for developing demand and four solutions for increasing airport capacity relative to ATMs and number of passengers were
designed and combined into six scenarios for matching capacity to
demand. The scenarios made presumptions about demand growth and
ways to provide adequate capacity airside and landside. Such development has implied the removal of existing constraints related to maximum number of ATMs and land use. The scenarios have indicated
that the airport will continue to confront persistent congestion during the next 20 years. The periods of saturation and relieving capacity demand will follow each other, depending on the scenarios of
growing demand and implementation of particular capacity scenarios.
The choice of realistic matching scenarios will be clearer after a
national discussion based on the British governments 2002 documentation from economic, social, and environmental perspectives.

REFERENCES
1. Forbes, P. A. Airport PrivatizationHow Should Airport Operators
and Investors React to Changing Market Conditions. In Proc., Association of European Transport 2002 Conference, Cambridge, England,
Sept. 2002, p. 20.
2. ACI Europe. ACI Traffic Forecasts: 19992020. Airport Council International, Geneva, Switzerland, 2001.
3. European Air Traffic Forecast 19852015. Air Transport Action Group,
Geneva, Switzerland, 1999.
4. Current Market Outlook. Boeing Co., Seattle, Wash., 2001.

Transportation Research Record 1888

5. Airport Capacity Benchmarking Report 2001. FAA, U.S. Department

of Transportation, 2002.
6. Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East.
A National Consultation Document. Department of the Environment,
Transport, and Regions, London, 2002.
7. Ashford, N., M. Stanton, and C. Moore. Airport Operations. WileyInterscience, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1997.
8. Janic, M. Air Transport Systems Analysis and Modeling. Gordon &
Breach Science Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2001, p. 310.
9. Interaction Between High-Speed Rail and Air Passenger Transport.
Final Report. Action COST 318, European Commission, DG VII,
Luxembourg, 1998.
10. Caves, R. E., and G. D. Gosling. Strategic Airport Planning. Pergamon,
Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1999.
11. Janic, M. Analysis of the Concepts of Airport Sustainable Capacity and
Development. Proc., 1st UK SCAN ConferenceSustainable Aviation,
Manchester, England, April 2001, p. 21.
12. Airport Planning Manual, Part 1: Master Planning, 2nd ed. International
Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1987.
13. Newell, G. F. Airport Capacity and Delays. Transportation Science,
Vol. 13, No. 3, 1979, pp. 201241.
14. Doganis, R. The Airport Business. Rutledge, London, 1992.
15. Fawcett, F. S., and A. S. Fawcett. Congestion at Capacity Constrained
Airports. Transportation Journal, Vol. 27, No. 4, 1988, pp. 4264.
16. Rendeiro Martin-Cejas, R. Airport Pricing in Europe and an Application
of Ramsey Pricing to Spanish Airports. Transportation Research E,
Vol. 33, No. 4, 1997, pp. 321327.
17. Aircraft Engine Emissions. Environmental Protection, Annex 16, Volume 2. International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada, 1993.
18. Aircraft Noise. Environmental Protection, Annex 16, Volume 1. International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1993.
19. Arthur D. Little, Ltd. Potential Impact of Changes in Technology on the
Development of Air Transport in the UK. Final Report. Department of
the Environment, Transport, and Regions, Cambridge, England, 2000.
20. Future of Aviation. Governments Consultation Document on Air Transport Policy. Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions,
London, 2000.
21. Heathrow Terminal Five and Associated Public Inquires. Summary
Report. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Department of the
Environment, Transport, and the Regions, London, 2001.
22. Heathrow Terminal 5. British Airport Authority, London. 2002.
baa.co.uk. Accessed June 6, 2003.
23. UK Airport Statistics. Economic Regulation Group, Civil Aviation
Authority, London, 2002.
24. Caves, R. E., and I. Humphreys. After Terminal 5: Where Next for UK
Airport Policy. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 8, 2002,
pp. 199200.
25. Airport Coordination Ltd. Peak Periods at Heathrow Airport, Attachment 1. Civil Aviation Authority, London, 2002.
26. MVA Group, Resource AnalysisDelft. Common Options for Airport
RegionsCOFAR. Report-RA/00-452. European Commission, Brussels,
Belgium, 2000.
27. Janic, M. Modeling Operational, Economic, and Environmental Performance of an Air Transport Network. Transportation Research D,
Vol. 8, 2003, pp. 415432.
28. EUROCONTROL/ECAC. ATFM Delays to Air Transport in Europe.
Annual Report 2000. CODA, Brussels, Belgium, 2001.
29. Barrett, S. D. Airport Competition in the Deregulated European Aviation
Market. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 6, 2000, pp. 1327.
30. Harper, K. Heathrow in Line for Third Runway. Guardian Unlimited,
Special Reports, London, 2002. guardian.co.uk. Accessed Jan. 7, 2003.
31. Revealed: Huge Expansion Plan for British Airports. Sunday Times,
July 7, London, 2002.
Publication of this paper sponsored by Airfield and Airspace Capacity and Delay
Committee.