The market WOULD sort itself out IF the politicians let it!
BAA and the airlines all want extra runways, and are prepared to pay for them at NO EXPENSE to the taxpayer (in stark contrast to a certain multi-billion pound high speed rail line to Birmingham) yet the politicians wont bite the bullet and grant permission.
Because the permission is dependent on a public enquiry that will be controlled (and paid) by govt. Given the level of modern opposition, the govt cannot just give permission. The process involves compulsory purchase etc.
I agree that politicians have evaded this for 30 years but the privatisation has made it significantly more difficult to expand air services. As we see with the HST 2.
But how does privatisation affect a public enquiry, be that for HS2 or LHR?!
Do you think that the government would have any more power over this if they owned LHR?
The people of west London would still throw a tizzy every time it is mentioned despite the fact the airport has been there since the forties, and the people of the Chilterns would still go nuts that someone has the audacity to smash civilisation through their sleepy villages.
If the Government owned LHR, then the taxpayer would have to pay for the new runway instead of BAA and the airlines doing it!
Quote: "BAA and the airlines all want extra runways, and are prepared to pay for them at NO EXPENSE to the taxpayer (in stark contrast to a certain multi-billion pound high speed rail line to Birmingham) yet the politicians wont bite the bullet and grant permission."
Exactly, and not just BAA and the airlines, it's also most Conservative and Labour MPs, business and trade, and pax fed up with the delays and congestion.
Quote: "Because the permission is dependent on a public enquiry that will be controlled (and paid) by govt. Given the level of modern opposition, the govt cannot just give permission. The process involves compulsory purchase etc."
No, this not correct, no further public enquiry is necessary, it is a way of chucking it back in the long grass.
All that is needed is to restore the permission already granted in 2009 and then revoked in 2010.
But Cameron and co. won't stand up to the "tea boy".
Quote: "The people of west London would still throw a tizzy every time it is mentioned despite the fact the airport has been there since the forties, and the people of the Chilterns would still go nuts that someone has the audacity to smash civilisation through their sleepy villages."
It's not just the people of west London, but also parts of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Middlesex and Surrey as well, who will throw a much bigger tizzy when they lose their daily half day of quiet as mixed mode is phased in.
This will be the consequence of no expansion: even more will have to be squeezed out of the two rwys, and to hell with the increased congestion and delays. That said, most of the vocal opposition lives miles away from Heathrow.
With 4 rwys, alternation can continue. The penny will drop slowly, hope it's not too late by then.
As for the people of the Chilterns, they have a point in one respect: it's the wrong (long) route to the wrong destination (too close for any benefit) in a bad scheme that needs rethinking.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 26th Jul 2012 at 00:11.
Quote: “Then it has to come down to shifting some destinations to other airports “ Been done! Back in the day, in the 1960s and 1970s, the government directed LGW-based BUA and BCAL to operate flights to/from South America and West Africa, excluding LHR-based BOAC from these destinations. This was a spectacular failure: both BUA and BCAL went bust, partly becasuse of the insufficient connectivity at LGW.
This could not be done now as we live in a privatised, deregulated and open skies environment, and of course, the EU would doubtless interfere.
Route swapping between airports still happens, but for commercial reasons decided by the carriers, for example BA moving flights to some places between LHR, LCY and LGW.
Quote: “FDF - the good people of the SE have heard all the stories from BAA and BA for years about how a little more expansion will cut the impact of aircraft noise on their lives and TBH it's all been lies
No third runaway forces the airline business to do something a bit harder than yelling for more of the same - and these are the VOTERS we're talking about - a democracy at work no?”
Not sure of the point being made here. Those of us under the flight path are well aware that if there isn’t a third rwy, then a little more capacity will have squeezed out of the system, by switching to permanent mixed mode. This will mean the end of segregated mode and the ending of alternation, which means the end of the daily half a day of quiet.
Quote: “If BAA want a fourth runway lets see them run for public office”
There's no need for them to do this, and no point.
Quote: “Are you suggesting that there are circumstances under which a third runway/T6 could go ahead without a public enquiry, or have I misunderstood ?” Correct me if this is wrong, but aren’t large infrastructure plans now dealt with by the “nationally significant infrastructure projects” procedure? AFAIK this speeds up the planning procedure to avoid planning inquiry like that of Heathrow-5 and others dragging on forever. AFAIK rail infrastructure improvements are also dealt with this way.
Honestly, at a trice this will sort out all the runway capacity problems, the taxiway capacity problems, the terminal capacity problems, the airspace capacity problems, the surface transport capacity problems, and all the noise and environmental problems.
Isn't it wonderful that we have such enlightened leaders, who know what they are doing and what the nation needs. Makes you feel proud to be British.
What is the specific airspace capacity problem around LHR then? What % airspace capacity are we currently at? Will we run out of airspace capacity around LHR before runway capacity?
I have NO idea of the top off my head(!) However.... I did tell you a while back that if you want to know the specifics then you need to ask in the ATC forum. I understand that BAA did not look for planning permission on Runway Three on the basis of crossing their fingers on airspace capacity and hoping things would be jolly. For example NATS had proposals to make more efficient use of the stacks by moving them.
The London airports are not in each others way in a GLA / EDI sort of clash, LGW is well South of LHR and STN and LTN are both well North of both. SEN is on the coast......
Someone more informed and in the know will help you here, if you start a new thread and ask your question. ATC Issues - PPRuNe Forums
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 29th Jul 2012 at 21:34.
Now this is quite undiplomatic language for a professional politician, and Boris knows it. He recognizes that London and the UK have an airport crisis, but he has also seen that Cameron's dithering is not gathering votes (on so many issues). History has told Boris that being bold can deliver votes, as well as being good for the nation.
His claim that we cannot kick this decision into the long grass is an overt shot across Cameron's bows. It is a political ultimatum - do something, make a statement, make a decision, tell us what you are thinking. Either do something, or expect to have your position contested, here and now. This is an opening shot in a political campaign.
Hmm, not convinced that it's so clear-cut. Any Conservative party leadership contest is unlikely to be Boris v. Call-Me-Dave. It is more likely that it would take place if/when Call-Me-Dave loses an election, and resigns as Conservative leader. It would therefore be Boris v. Osborne or David Davis or A.N.OTHER. How would Boris fare as leader of the opposition?
Of course Boris would have to be an MP and, allegedly, this will not happen until he has completed his term as mayor. Boris is clearly benefitting from the "Olympics bounce", but will this last long enough?
On the other hand, imagine this:
1. there is a feelgood factor from the Jubilee and the Olympics;
2. the Conservatives scrape through the Corby by-election on a low turnout because Miliband is still not trusted;
3. all the Libdems vote down the boundary-change bill (with Labour and the "minority parties") in a tit-for-tat for no House of Lords reform;
4. Call-Me-Dave sacks the Libdems from his cabinet ending the coalition;
5. Call-Me-Dave apparently dislikes minority governments (why else would he put up with the Libdems?) so risks a general election........
Either way, all bets re. Boris are off.
If Call-Me-Dave wins, he's unassailable for a while, if he loses, Boris is not in the House of Commons and cannot mount a leadership challenge.
Unlikely of course, but not impossible.
Boris is right on the need to stop pussyfooting around and make some decisions, but it has to be the correct decision, and this means Heathrow expansion, now.
Well it will be as soon as Boris becomes Prime Minister.
.....all at the same time from Boris. He can never be PM in the real world. We elected him Mayor as it's a role requiring a personality. For a national leader, the economy is front and centre, requiring an attention to detail that Boris lacks. The Olympics was awesome but the money was spent in the good times and it cost £9 billion quid. Fantasy Island would cost considerably more without the orgasmic feel good factor. Incidentally the inital cost of the Olympics was a fraction of what it ended up costing. The same is likely for Project Zip Wire in the Thames Estuary.