HEATHROW

[Dannyboy39]

That may mean demanding that Heathrow bans staff from driving to work.

Or saying that all "airside" vehicles (that is vehicles that operate within the airport's perimeter) have to be electric.

:Banghead :Banghead :Banghead


1 airport expansion being prevented won't stop global warming. Telling Americans not to use 4.6 litre "gas guzzlers" might help and stopping the Chinese building 10s of new airports every year would be a good start. Apologies for singling out two nations, but this environmental excuse is just that.

[hampshireandy]

Why cant anyone in this godforsaken country of ours ever make a damn decision!

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Better still, let's acknowledge the real science which confirms that 'global warming' isn't happening. Climate is functioning entirely within normal historic parameters. CO2 is not evil; it is essential to plant life on Earth. The global warming scare is driven by vested-interests making money from the whole nonsense and the IPCC is a purely political beast which buries inconvenient science and ridicules well-informed critics. True debate is stifled with pretentious 'justification' in the manner of "the science is settled." Whatever the rights and wrongs of LHR expansion, climate-doom scaremongering delivered with religious fervour by the wilfully deluded should not be the determining factor in the final decision.

Demanding that Heathrow bans staff from driving to work. Well that should be quite the spectacle to behold. Good luck getting that one through. Maybe they should try it after similar measures have been imposed on all MP's, civil servants, Met Office and BBC staff!

[giblets]

Beginning to wonder if the Cameron quote was actually " no ifs, no buts, no 3rd runway at Heathrow...decision"

The today programme reported no10 as still claiming the decision would be made before the end of the year.
Perhaps they will push the decision, and then force the review?

[PAXboy]

I repeat myself: It won't get built and the airport will continue it's steady slide down the scale.

[anothertyke]

I'd be surprised if this turns out to have anything whatever to do with global warming. The carbon emissions were fully costed in the AC report. A number of contributors suggested in the 'Another runway...' thread that local air quality in semi-permanent breach of emissions standards in the Heathrow zone would be the biggest single hurdle the scheme would have to jump. Of course they said that months ago, so if the decision is postponed, the timing is interesting.

[Walnut]

Who knows whether the Politician's will summon up enough courage to make a decision but surely competition is in the best interests of everyone. So to give LGW the ability to compete must be better for society in the long run.
Its a mistake to put all your transport nodes in one area as was witnessed recently when the LHR central area tunnels closed for a short period, causing absolute chaos.

[Fairdealfrank]

Ho ho ho, even more indecision, delay, dither and procrastination!

Wasn't the Davis commission comprehensive and detailed enough?

How much taxpayers' money has been wasted on the various commissions, studies, reviews, etc. going back to the 1970s?

Bagso, have you nothing to say about this shocking waste of public money over 40 years?

Aren't "difficult" decisions supposed to be made early in a parliament, just after a general election? Doesn't the cabinet know anything?

[Heathrow Harry]

They do and they also know the old Sir Humphrey quote - a Bold decision could cost you your seat, a BRAVE decision could cost you the next election

Oddly this is OK - of all the issues facing Govt a new London runway is probably 99th out of 100 in importance (I know most people on here disagree but this IS a flying forum)

if it isn't built we'll all find a way round it - larger aircraft using the slots at LHR & LGW, more use of the Chunned to near-Europe, more flights from Stansted, Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle etc, more interconnections in Dubai, AMS etc etc

The overall cost may be higher but it will be spread over a much longer period and more people

[True Blue]

maybe that is the problem when you start with " what is the answer we need" then your case starts to be pulled apart.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

So to give LGW the ability to compete must be better for society in the long run.
Its a mistake to put all your transport nodes in one area as was witnessed recently when the LHR central area tunnels closed for a short period, causing absolute chaos.

Gatwick has competed for years with LHR, what you're asking is for one business where more airlines want to use (LHR) to be held back to allow a second business that many airlines shun (LGW) to compete more effectively. Except the key point is that the routes we need are choosing to use AMS, FRA et al rather than LGW, which is available today. I reiterate recent history.
AA/DL/US/CO/NW all left LGW for LHR of their own free will, with CO/DL/NW/US having said they'd happily serve both. In the end, they walked away from LGW as it was less competitive. The same goes for recent history with CA/KE/GA/VN. No long haul foreign airline will shoose LGW over LHR if they can avoid it with the exception of the likes of loco long haul of Norwegian.
LGW can't compete on alevel playing field with LHR because LHR is a world airport and LGW simply isn't in that league. In terms of connectivity they are miles apart.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

I'm not disagreeing with the points you make about long-haul appeal, Skipness. But like it or not, much of the growth from the SE will come from short-haul demand to established bucket-and-spade favourites such as Spain, Portugal and the Canaries. The vast bulk of near-term demand increases will be to less glamorous destinations such as these, not to Chongqing and Chennai. LGW should - subject to not tapping public funds - be allowed to develop the runway infrastructure necessary to service this large leisure-orientated niche. The airport has amply demonstrated its suitability for that market. We're talking additional journey demand in the multiple millions per annum to destinations of this type.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

I don't see how "short-haul demand to established bucket-and-spade favourites" helps the UK economy or grows jobs across all of the UK.

What's more important for the national interest?

Like many, I thought the Davies report was very conclusive. Dithering isn't exclusively a UK political skill but you do seem to set the benchmark.

[Bagso]

You are quite right Frank the Davies report WAS and still remains a complete waste of money, when it comes to Heathrow nobody is going to make a decision.

I think we need to get used to it and move on.

Cameron has been blessed with a relatively pain free tenure. In 2 years, halfway thru this Parliament he will be gone, clearly he is not minded to have a "poll tax" moment with fellow colleagues propelling a subject to ministerial level, which quite frankly might be pivotal to our interest in aviation but sadly Frank, is of supreme disinterest to the "I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here Generation".

Why create an uneccessary but possibly disastrous side show ?

Leader writers and indeed business leaders can gnash their teeth with dismay, as indeed can some here, but it won't make a blind bit of difference. Politicians in my view only make awkward U turns when they are sufficiently embarrassed by possible political fallout. If building a runway came into this category then despite CO2 emissions , despite outrageous cost , it would be signed off tomorrow, it doesnt, infact in this instance quite the opposite prevails.

And who are the big hitters waiting to pounce on number10 , and possibly inherit this poisonous chalice down the line ?

Well don't hold your breath if you support RW3 !

May, Emphatic NO
Johnson, Empthatic NO

And the favourite Osbourne, now savvy enough to how shall we say be 100% resolute in private but tepid to luke warm in public.

When he is not flying the somewhat tattered flag for Northern England it is only G.O. who has shown the slightest inkling toward supporting Heathrow, due no doubt to some long lunches in the City, but even he has gained enough nous to see the prize ahead and not jeapodise that with any "loose talk" especially if its .....toxic !

But let's be clear, if as a previous poster suggested no runway is built at Heathrow the World will not stop turning, the UK will not stop trading with the World and the World will not stop trading with us ! Don't contemplate the paracetmol and that bottle of Bells just yet Frank, Heathrow will be around for a long time yet, albeit even more creative in adapting to change.... or in this case lack of !

Ps something is only conclusive if it provides the answer YOU might want!

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

I don't see how "short-haul demand to established bucket-and-spade favourites" helps the UK economy or grows jobs across all of the UK.

Well, you are entitled to harbour a personal dislike of the leisure travel sector if you wish but the market exists in volume regardless of your disdain. Companies such as TUI, Thomas Cook, EasyJet and Ryanair are major employers and support further employment across the wider economy. Leisure travel encompasses inbound traffic as well as 'Brits abroad'. The hospitality and tourism industries support substantial employment in the UK. These are labour-intensive sectors.

The flights associated with these sectors require runway capacity too. Quite alot of it actually. To extend your logic, London requires no new runway. In fact, you could close afew. Just ban foreign holidays and there will be plenty of airport capacity for the 'suits' to fly wherever they need. But this is the real world, and the healthy, growing leisure travel market is a major part of the demand equation. Demand which an expanded LGW is well-placed to address on behalf of the SE.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

LGW should - subject to not tapping public funds - be allowed to develop the runway infrastructure necessary to service this large leisure-orientated niche. The airport has amply demonstrated its suitability for that market. We're talking additional journey demand in the multiple millions per annum to destinations of this type.

Good point.

Growth in terms of volume looks like it will be around that segment, this is partially why easyJet were sniffing around Terminal 4 with a view to a medium term LHR presence should Runway 3 go ahead. In terms of the strategic growth around investment and overseas trade then that's always LHR, LGW has nothing to say here. I do not disagree that LGW really ought to be allowed a second runway to make a good airport even better however. What worries the money men at GIP is that any runway three at LHR will see EZY at LHR and suddenly the dynamics of the market flip. Not only do they risk EZY bleeding across to LHR but, and feel free to disagree, BA would be greatly tempted to shift those ten daily long haul movements out to LHR as would VS for the sake of six B744 / A330s. Overnight they could slash the cost of their London handling and Engineering cover with little risk that the LGW market would not follow them to LHR.

Just ban foreign holidays and there will be plenty of airport capacity for the 'suits'

Much of (most?) short haul business travel is in Economy nowadays, and only b(w)ankers and car salesman tend to wear suits to work

[HOODED]

Is it just me? Air quality is alleged to be the issue here. What about all the aircraft stacking going round and round burning fuel over London because there isn't enough runway capacity to land from a streight in approach. That clearly doesn't add to the pollution then..
I despair of this country, think it's time to get some politicians that actually do what's best for the Country not what's easiest for their own careers.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

SOAP,

you are entitled to harbour a personal dislike of the leisure travel sector if you wish

Yet again you presume too much - I said nothing of the sort.

Far more knowledgeable people than I have identified bigger economic & employment benefits from an expanded LHR than any of the alternatives. Holiday makers, whilst spending a little in the UK on their holiday, spend most of it abroad - and none of it benefits UK exports. None of the airlines you mention carry export goods. And no, SLF don't count.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Holiday makers, whilst spending a little in the UK on their holiday, spend most of it abroad

This isn't the issue here. Holidaymakers travel by air and will continue to do so, probably in increasing numbers. The SE airport system must accommodate them. LGW is ideal for this role.

None of the airlines you mention carry export goods.

So are you suggesting that EasyJet, Ryanair and the like don't require runway slots in the course of their daily operations? That is the point here, not the UK balance of payments.

And no, SLF don't count.

Afraid they do! Take a good look at the holding point at LGW. Their flights must be accommodated within the system.

[yotty]

Shed, give a new runway to LHR which will free up capacity for the leisure travel sector you claim is needed at LGW