HEATHROW
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to bang on about this but talking to professionals in ATC they say this will make little difference ...
Problem is one of capacity in the air, whether thats mixed mode on 2 or even 3 runways..........
Real answer is to close Stansted Gatwick etc and put 3 more runways /terminals into Heathrow!
...it will however create 000s of jobs and handily fill a big hole in the construction/housing industry at the moment which is bleeding jobs !
Problem is one of capacity in the air, whether thats mixed mode on 2 or even 3 runways..........
Real answer is to close Stansted Gatwick etc and put 3 more runways /terminals into Heathrow!
...it will however create 000s of jobs and handily fill a big hole in the construction/housing industry at the moment which is bleeding jobs !
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to bang on about this but talking to professionals in ATC they say this will make little difference ...
Problem is one of capacity in the air, whether thats mixed mode on 2 or even 3 runways..........
Problem is one of capacity in the air, whether thats mixed mode on 2 or even 3 runways..........
Paxing All Over The World
Heathrow's third runway to fall foul of EU rules
Ministers will give a green light to the airport's extension, but critics say Europe's pollution targets could prevent it from being built
By Geoffrey Lean and Brian Brady
Sunday, 11 January 2009
Heathrow's third runway to fall foul of EU rules - Home News, UK - The Independent
Heathrow's controversial third runway – due to be given the green light by ministers this week – is unlikely ever to be built because it will fall foul of new European pollution laws, environmentalists and senior government advisers believe.
The airport's two existing runways already cause air pollution which breaches compulsory European Union air-quality standards, which Britain will have to observe by 2015. Neither anti-runway campaigners nor the Government's Environment Agency see how these can possibly be met if the number of flights rises by 50 per cent as planned.
Article continues ...
(I am tempted to repeat my earlier observation that the third would never be built)
Ministers will give a green light to the airport's extension, but critics say Europe's pollution targets could prevent it from being built
By Geoffrey Lean and Brian Brady
Sunday, 11 January 2009
Heathrow's third runway to fall foul of EU rules - Home News, UK - The Independent
Heathrow's controversial third runway – due to be given the green light by ministers this week – is unlikely ever to be built because it will fall foul of new European pollution laws, environmentalists and senior government advisers believe.
The airport's two existing runways already cause air pollution which breaches compulsory European Union air-quality standards, which Britain will have to observe by 2015. Neither anti-runway campaigners nor the Government's Environment Agency see how these can possibly be met if the number of flights rises by 50 per cent as planned.
Article continues ...
(I am tempted to repeat my earlier observation that the third would never be built)
Demo?
Small article in the D Tele on Sat mentions "Climate Rush" who plan to descend on LHR for a "peaceful picnic" On Monday evening (I assume this Mon). Strange time for a "picnic", why not last week when it we had better weather (temps)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A way will be found, there's a lot of backroom give and take available. The rest of the EU has a load of opt outs on matters of national imprtance.
HACAN are a bunch or arrogant, selfish NIMBYs.
Lord Smith, the chairman of the Environment Agency, said yesterday that the runway could not go ahead unless "very strict pollution limits" were set. He was sceptical that the EU standards could be met, and would prefer that the runway was not built.
John Stewart, the chairman of Hacan Clearskies, which leads opposition to the project, said yesterday: "The runway will never see the light of day."
John Stewart, the chairman of Hacan Clearskies, which leads opposition to the project, said yesterday: "The runway will never see the light of day."
mostly harmless
PaxBoy
This is hardly new news. The original 2003 recommendation for the Heathrow 3rd runway was made subject to the EU air quality regulation being complied with. The only 'new news' is that compliance is apparently more difficult than was then expected. (I think that the original idea was that a few electrick omnibuses and some restrictions on car access to the central zone would do the trick).
Skipness1Echo
Air quality is not only a matter of NIMBYism. Airport workers have to breathe too (although I'm told not all managers).
This is hardly new news. The original 2003 recommendation for the Heathrow 3rd runway was made subject to the EU air quality regulation being complied with. The only 'new news' is that compliance is apparently more difficult than was then expected. (I think that the original idea was that a few electrick omnibuses and some restrictions on car access to the central zone would do the trick).
Skipness1Echo
Air quality is not only a matter of NIMBYism. Airport workers have to breathe too (although I'm told not all managers).
Paxing All Over The World
answer=42 I did not suggest that it was new, just that it was back in the news.
I think that Labour are playing the bluff - they know that planning permission, Green issues and finance will almost certainly delay this for another decade - but are saying Yes so as to sound biz friendly and gain more votes than they lose through this issue. But the final result? I still don't think it will happen.
I think that Labour are playing the bluff - they know that planning permission, Green issues and finance will almost certainly delay this for another decade - but are saying Yes so as to sound biz friendly and gain more votes than they lose through this issue. But the final result? I still don't think it will happen.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gain more votes than they lose through this issue
Paxing All Over The World
Sure, STN doesn't need one - that was always a smoke screen in my view. If I was a betting man, I would bet on LGW when their time limit expires.
I don't agree - that moment has already passed. It's just that the tipping point has not yet been reached but the quality of European hubs removing traffic from LHR are now joined by some Middle Eastern Hubs too.
BBC 13th January
Protesters buy up Heathrow land
Land earmarked for the construction of Heathrow's third runway has been bought by anti-expansion protesters.
Land the size of a football pitch near Sipson village - which would lose hundreds of homes in the expansion - was bought by a Greenpeace coalition.
They have pledged not to sell the land to the government or BAA if the airport expansion gets the go-ahead. Greenpeace director John Sauven said: "We've thrown a massive spanner in the engine driving Heathrow expansion."
BBC NEWS | England | London | Protesters buy up Heathrow land
The Future Heathrow Group warned in newspaper adverts "Heathrow's status as a global hub is at stake".
BBC 13th January
Protesters buy up Heathrow land
Land earmarked for the construction of Heathrow's third runway has been bought by anti-expansion protesters.
Land the size of a football pitch near Sipson village - which would lose hundreds of homes in the expansion - was bought by a Greenpeace coalition.
They have pledged not to sell the land to the government or BAA if the airport expansion gets the go-ahead. Greenpeace director John Sauven said: "We've thrown a massive spanner in the engine driving Heathrow expansion."
BBC NEWS | England | London | Protesters buy up Heathrow land
Last edited by PAXboy; 13th Jan 2009 at 00:58.
the area the size of a football pitch will probably be named grass area 3c, an airside area with no access to the celebrity owners between the runway and a taxiway. should save the government and BAA a few bob in compulsory purchase, and give the celebs someting to look at from their first class seats.
How on earth can land in the new runway area, which was for sale, not have been bought already by BAA, they should have been buying up all the land, houses etc available as they came on the market for years now. Has their fabled "market acumen" once again been shown by them being cheeseparing with buying the land required, and they have let it fall into the hands of their enemies ? Heads should roll in their estates department if they have done this to save a bit of cash.
If the runway is given the go ahead there would be a CPO. Why would BAA buy any land before that at a possibly inflated price.
Also maybe the land wasnt up for sale and was owned by someone in Sipson who is against heathrow expansion. They wouldn't sell to BAA but did to Greenpeace for their little publicity stunt.
Of course non of these celebrity supporters would be bothered about the amount of jobs created in the local area as a result of the expansion, as long as their west London homes dont lose much in value.
Also maybe the land wasnt up for sale and was owned by someone in Sipson who is against heathrow expansion. They wouldn't sell to BAA but did to Greenpeace for their little publicity stunt.
Of course non of these celebrity supporters would be bothered about the amount of jobs created in the local area as a result of the expansion, as long as their west London homes dont lose much in value.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would bet on LGW when their time limit expires.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again Govt procrastination is dragging the aviation industry down again. Is it not a bit of deja a vue as per T5? History will repeat itself because at the end of the day none of these elected parliamentarians don't give a toss about a 3rd runway but are soley concerned with self preservation. It is similar to the issue of nuclear power...it is required, will be built, but nobody in Govt wants to be the one to break the bad news. Everybody is very quick to slate BAA but once again here is another example of how succesive Govt policy is letting everyone associated with aviation down very badly.