So where are those 140,000 flights coming from to maintain the status quo?
No, it'll be many years before you get back to where you are now but don't forget that you're in this situation to start with because successive governments failed to put the national interest ahead of party-political, self-interest. So LHR will again fill up undoubtedly and probably sooner than 2040 if the current trend continues of the middle classes & business travellers flying more. Regardless, that's no reason NOT to build the 3rd.
Indeed it's not. It is, however, a reason to build the third rwy as soon as, and to start planning for a fourth for several years down the line.
Like it or not, an expensive, independent commission has considered the evidence so rather than fighting the umpire, I suggest you get your elected government to make a decision! Agree to it or not. But don't pass the buck.
Elected government make a decision? You are having a laugh aren't you? Why are we surrounded by flying pigs?
trashnnav: I dont know where 140000 extra flights are coming from, you need to ask Sir H who states in his report that the 3rd rwy will enable the airport to handle 740000 movements per year which give-or-take a few is 280000 more than now. teevees point ( I think) is that adding another rwy while increasing the no. of movs simply maintains the present level of congestion. actually it must increase it since the airspace doesnt increase to accomodate more flights.
Clearly it's not going to be full from day one: the day the 3rd rwy opens (hypothetical of course because doing nothing, dithering, and delay are likely to prevail) LHR would go from operating at 100.00% rwy capacity to 66.67% at a stroke.
Queues for take off and landing would end, again at a stroke.
There would probably be a glut of new activity (as the 20 new carriers come in and incumbents increase frequencies) then a gradual but steady increase in movements.