HEATHROW
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well as if on........
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...P=share_btn_tw
Must say the points raised here are identical to the ones I raised previously.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...P=share_btn_tw
Must say the points raised here are identical to the ones I raised previously.
Last edited by Navpi; 9th Oct 2016 at 12:22.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In addition I do wonder if Greening and zac might resign, whilst not a disaster it will leave awkward questions.
"if Greening and zac might resign, whilst not a disaster it will leave awkward questions"
worse than that - the Tories might lose thei seats and cut their majority from 12 to 8......... Harold Wilson approved the Humber Bridge at a cost of £ 150 million (in 1966) to save a seat in a by-election .....................
worse than that - the Tories might lose thei seats and cut their majority from 12 to 8......... Harold Wilson approved the Humber Bridge at a cost of £ 150 million (in 1966) to save a seat in a by-election .....................
Even if this happened, it's easily solved by a general election within the next month, unfortunately, just like Gordon in 2007,Theresa has bottled it.
If LHR gets the go ahead you can kiss goodby to the northern powerhouse and HS2.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note someone said how much do you think it would take to move the Queen Mother Reservoir,? not a lot to drain it and you then end up with a large flat area perfect for building a runway and the associated infrastructure in relative peace. Water can easily be piped in from elsewhere
It was also said such a runway would be closer to Windsor and Maidenhead, however R3 is going to be partially on the other side of the M25, so maybe it would be 6000ft or 1 mile nearer so a/c would only be 300ft lower on the approach, plus it could be orientated with say a 10deg offset
If the connecting taxiways were built Singapore style as at Changi then the disruption to the M25 would be minimal and could be built last ie in about 7/8yrs
However R3 needs a tunnel at least 800mts long, with major earthworks and the potential for pollution within the tunnel when grid lock occurs
It is this major earthworks which causes R3 to be much more expensive
So I do believe that Jock Lowes plan an ex BA chief pilot to be sensible, why spend more when you dont have to, LGW plus a Northern runway could be built for the price of R3
It was also said such a runway would be closer to Windsor and Maidenhead, however R3 is going to be partially on the other side of the M25, so maybe it would be 6000ft or 1 mile nearer so a/c would only be 300ft lower on the approach, plus it could be orientated with say a 10deg offset
If the connecting taxiways were built Singapore style as at Changi then the disruption to the M25 would be minimal and could be built last ie in about 7/8yrs
However R3 needs a tunnel at least 800mts long, with major earthworks and the potential for pollution within the tunnel when grid lock occurs
It is this major earthworks which causes R3 to be much more expensive
So I do believe that Jock Lowes plan an ex BA chief pilot to be sensible, why spend more when you dont have to, LGW plus a Northern runway could be built for the price of R3
Walnut.
From local knowledge the QM reservoir was the last to be built, for the anticipated increase in London's consumption of water. Where would you wish to build another reservoir in its place with the same capacity, and who would pay?
From local knowledge the QM reservoir was the last to be built, for the anticipated increase in London's consumption of water. Where would you wish to build another reservoir in its place with the same capacity, and who would pay?
You're not related to Marie Antoinette, by any chance ? 
The Airports Commission, who clearly lack your water supply expertise, concluded in relation to one of the other expansion proposals that also involved relocating reservoirs:
"This impact would require alternative storage capacity meaning a new reservoir would be required in a location unknown at this stage
To understand the implications of building over reservoirs, Heathrow Ltd commissioned Thames Water to undertake a feasibility study on reservoir replacement. Thames Water explained the importance of maintaining the water supply to London residents and not allowing any development that would potentially reduce that supply. An initial conclusion was that to replace the reservoir could take up to 14 years, and that replacement should take place before construction of any new airport infrastructure, in order to maintain supplies to London
Locating on this area would potentially cause flood plain loss requiring compensatory storage"
The Airports Commission, who clearly lack your water supply expertise, concluded in relation to one of the other expansion proposals that also involved relocating reservoirs:
"This impact would require alternative storage capacity meaning a new reservoir would be required in a location unknown at this stage
To understand the implications of building over reservoirs, Heathrow Ltd commissioned Thames Water to undertake a feasibility study on reservoir replacement. Thames Water explained the importance of maintaining the water supply to London residents and not allowing any development that would potentially reduce that supply. An initial conclusion was that to replace the reservoir could take up to 14 years, and that replacement should take place before construction of any new airport infrastructure, in order to maintain supplies to London
Locating on this area would potentially cause flood plain loss requiring compensatory storage"
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting article in The Sunday Times re Heathrow suggesting lawyers are lining up !
I do wonder if the yes decision is going thru the motions and a yes is in name only.
I do wonder if the yes decision is going thru the motions and a yes is in name only.
Last edited by Navpi; 9th Oct 2016 at 12:22.
They, along with Windsor & Maidenhead, have appointed the lawyers who successfully challenged the previous Labour government's Heathrow expansion plans in the High Court in 2010.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one is going to invest in a plan that could be locked in litigation for years, as for the idea that the M25 could be diverted around the airport or put on a bridge is fanciful, are planes going to fly under this bridge,? I did it once on the Sim under the Lantau bridge at HKG and reckoned I knocked the Fin off!!
But it all comes back to the inescapable conclusion that
LHR plus one Runway equals retaining global hub for London
LHR as is plus one runway at LGW means no global hub for London
However as it seems as a country we are hell bent on retreating into obscurity maybe thats what will happen. I think alot of the council objections are pretty flaky because , especially in the case of Mrs May or Maynot constituency she has a lot of LHR workers and users living there
LHR plus one Runway equals retaining global hub for London
LHR as is plus one runway at LGW means no global hub for London
However as it seems as a country we are hell bent on retreating into obscurity maybe thats what will happen. I think alot of the council objections are pretty flaky because , especially in the case of Mrs May or Maynot constituency she has a lot of LHR workers and users living there
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
However as it seems as a country we are hell bent on retreating into obscurity maybe thats what will happen. I think alot of the council objections are pretty flaky because , especially in the case of Mrs May or Maynot constituency she has a lot of LHR workers and users living there
Heathrow doesn't fade into obscurity hell no the O & D traffic markets are more yield beneficial and remain steadfastly routed through the airport as it is now and the airport and airlines continue to rake in rather nice profits.
There actually aren't that many particularly long destinations to be added now or even in the next two decades its a marketing myth imo
Most/much of expected global aviation growth is in Asia regionally inter China, inter India and Indonesia.
Whilst within Europe the flexible fares (so called LCC or ULCC what ever that means) will continue to be the main drivers for growth.
Why else are Easyjet wanting to base 40 aircraft at Heathrow with possible consequences for current Gatwick , Luton and even Bristol operations do you suppose.
I have said before that I couldn't care less if some Texan or Italian miraculously finds in easier to route via somewhere else it not of my concern nor should it be the concern of any elected or appointed commissioner in this thorny debate about runway capacity particularly in the South East and those utterly obscene estimated cost projections.
Last edited by rutankrd; 9th Oct 2016 at 12:37.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR as is plus one runway at LGW means no global hub for London
Last edited by MANFOD; 9th Oct 2016 at 12:59.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post rutankrd. 
The effect of opening a 3rd runway at LHR on the other London airports, their serving airlines and workers, has been consistently underplayed/ ignored by the pro LHR lobbyists; greater resilience (by that I mean ability to cope with extreme WX events/ aircraft incidents/ acts of terrorism) of the total LON airport system provided by having a better diversified runway distribution has also been largely ignored-having 2 airports with 2 runways is better than having 1 airport with 3, and one with 1, when events conspire against air travel.
For the majority of the UK population (and even a fair proportion from the areas in and around London), the use of Dublin as a western gateway, and Amsterdam as an eastern gateway for onward travel setting off from an airport that is not LHR, is now pretty well established and often felt to be less hassle than trying to do anything from LHR.
There is still massive capacity available throughout the non-London UK airports; there is even a fair bit left within the LON airport system to accommodate the growth of UK and European shorter-haul flights.
The effect of opening a 3rd runway at LHR on the other London airports, their serving airlines and workers, has been consistently underplayed/ ignored by the pro LHR lobbyists; greater resilience (by that I mean ability to cope with extreme WX events/ aircraft incidents/ acts of terrorism) of the total LON airport system provided by having a better diversified runway distribution has also been largely ignored-having 2 airports with 2 runways is better than having 1 airport with 3, and one with 1, when events conspire against air travel.
For the majority of the UK population (and even a fair proportion from the areas in and around London), the use of Dublin as a western gateway, and Amsterdam as an eastern gateway for onward travel setting off from an airport that is not LHR, is now pretty well established and often felt to be less hassle than trying to do anything from LHR.
There is still massive capacity available throughout the non-London UK airports; there is even a fair bit left within the LON airport system to accommodate the growth of UK and European shorter-haul flights.
Mrs M also has more than equal constituents that object to a new runway, as all constituents will be affected by overflying from a new runway, either landing or departing.
Flaky? The borough will need to provide housing, doctors, schools etc to accommodate extra staff, who will all travel in electric cars
Flaky? The borough will need to provide housing, doctors, schools etc to accommodate extra staff, who will all travel in electric cars
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the majority of the UK population (and even a fair proportion from the areas in and around London), the use of Dublin as a western gateway, and Amsterdam as an eastern gateway for onward travel setting off from an airport that is not LHR, is now pretty well established
Last I heard, 75million pax used LHR - most are not using DUB or AMS - so where's your evidence?
Personal opinion as I have flown through all 3 & avoid AMS & DUB whenever possible. LHR is rated the best in Western Europe.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airport Council International.
Best-Airport-by-Size-and-Region/Europe
Best-Airport-by-Size-and-Region/Europe