HEATHROW

[Skipness One Echo]

Last year handled 70M , that 5.6m per year, demand on the new runway would be swallowed up in less than 3 years..... is it really worth it ?

Of course it is, rather have part of something than all of nothing.

Heathrow is growing at 8% per annum.

No it's not, let me dig out the actual tomorrow, 8% is much too high (alas)

[davidjohnson6]

Bagso - where did you get the figure of 8% growth per year ?
Assuming that Heathrow largely reflects the state of the UK / European economy and the 8% growth is consistent over a few years as opposed to being down to a special blip in the figures, it would suggest we have left recession long behind...

[Dannyboy39]

Justine Greening just been on the BBC - hinting pretty strongly about Boris' Fantasy Island.

I do feel a bit sorry for her; she's going to be the sacrificial lamb in this issue. Runway 3 will probably go ahead and she'll lose her job in 3 years time. However, I say that, just another NIMBY MP.

[compton3bravo]

She was talking about half-a-runway(!) at Heathrow for the third runway. I would think she is going to lose her ministerial job in a matter of days.

[Dannyboy39]

2/3 of a runway, to be pedantic!

I realise its going to be used for smaller aircraft, but is there a reason why its only 2km long rather than 2.5km for example? What difference would an extra 500m make? There's been a lot of discussion on the LTN thread about safety and runway lengths.

[DaveReidUK]

I do feel a bit sorry for her; she's going to be the sacrificial lamb in this issue. Runway 3 will probably go ahead and she'll lose her job in 3 years time.

I suspect that Greening neither needs nor wants your sympathy.

The Transport portfolio normally turns over every couple of years or so, with incumbents destined either for political oblivion or (as seems likely in JG's case) for higher things. She is, after all, only supporting what is (current) government policy which, so far at least, coincides with the interests of her constituents.

Fascinating to speculate where she will be moved to, and who will be her successor, though - we'll find out next month.

[Barling Magna]

I heard the interview. She struggled to give a coherent reply to James Naughtie's question whether she could continue to serve in a cabinet which approved a third runway at LHR. In fact her overall performance was quite weak, so she must be destined for better things!

[davidjohnson6]

Googling around I've seen various reports indicating that a proposed R3 at Heathrow would cost about £10 bn - presumably paid for by BAA
This seems to be an awful lot of money for a private company to be spending.

Could someone explain where all this money would be spent ?
Is compulsory purchasing the land around Sipson the major cause of the cost or is there something else ?

[PAXboy]

Off the top of my head:
Updated and expanded later;

• legal costs
• compulsory purchase + legal costs!
• the A4 road has to be dropped down.
• the road connecting to the M4 will have to have a roof on it for most of the way and a load bearing roof at that! Some buildings in the new area will have to be put on piles spanning the road
• the Northern perimeter road and related access roads?
• Access taxiways from the main area for a/c to cross the Northern runway when required.
• There are shops and a petrol station that have to be vaporised (and vaporisation machines are costly )
• It's not just a runway but all the intermediate space that is built up with hotels and ancilliary buildings.
• Security and other provision around an expanded site
• Taxi ways with their lighting, guidance control for auto landing, ground spanning radar may need to be moved, or have whole new units put in. etc.
• all the control systems have to be expanded to have the extra runway and taxiways integrated.
• etcetera.

[DaveReidUK]

And then there's Terminal 6 ...

[WHBM]

Well we have to look at the huge amount spent in the late 1980s on Stansted, new terminal, all the access, etc, for it to be the new wonderport of London. Since then it has steadily declined towards being a Ryanair focus point only (I'm sure the Irish government is very grateful that we have allowed them to build up one of their major industries with our own money), and all the mainstream carriers who have tried service there have lost bucketloads of money so-doing and have left, because more than halfway to Cambridge is completely the WRONG PLACE for a London airport. The fact is that the market supports one major, close-in, accessible, near where people live, visit and work, hub, and it is being like King Canute to try and force things otherwise.

I do hope the £10bn includes doing things properly for all arrangements, no nonsenses like T5 being fully up to capacity the year it opened with BA flights then scattered awkwardly elsewhere (which looks set to get worse). I also very much hope that whoever came up with the silly Piccadilly Line Underground arrangement with half the trains going round by T4, the other half direct to T123, so the next one or even two manage to overtake the one waiting and waiting at T4 with everyone for T123 in it getting worried, has long retired. Of course, if BAA are allowed to have their own way T6 will be Heathrow Express only.

[FAStoat]

3rd Runway for ?Heathrow

What on earth is going on with our disingenuous and half baked Government and the impending further rows over Heathrow needing another Runway.05/23 was used up until Concorde's operation deemed it unfeasible because it was not only too short but infringed Northolt's panhandle.The surroundings surely make this option a potential vote disaster,if domestic and industrial properties are to be sacrificed to build it.Similarly at Gatwick,the anger at a potential 2nd runway has been responsible for binning that option for some years;again a Tory stronghold area would be a certain vote loser!!?BUT having operated out of Stansted in its olden days and later with its posh new terminal and cargo centre,it is a natural option.In fact having been in Standby houses in Little Dunmow and Great Dunmow,and talked to the locals at some length about Stansted expansion,most were quite anxious,but resigned!.It was said at the time of the new Terminal being opened, that much land south of the new ring roads had been earmarked and actually bought for a new east/west runway to be parallel to the current active.The village of Elsenham,and its little Industry was to be spared so the construction activity was to be aligned further west towards the M11.We were told by local Farmers that excellent compensation had been agreed for "as and when" this might happen,and the land already acquired was and would be leased back until the developement began.All this was generally local gossip in the early 90s,and most seemed resigned to a new runway at Stansted.It has the M11,A14,M25 and other major routes close by ,plus the dedicated Rail service.It also has already ALL the approach aids for Cat3,and I think Cat3b,although I never experienced that level of low viz approach there.It also has Southend close by as a somewhat sleepy reasonably large Airport for Diversions,with an excellent weather record,which could open up Southend for greater things,and relieve Luton,Birmingham in the Bucket and Spade flights.Stansted is now recognised as London's 3rd Airport,and no longer has the Red Eye Arrivals from across the Pond asking "How to get into the City"?when all the buses and taxis have already gone.The Transport system is all there.I rest my case,as it seems all this flapping around is only for this Coalition of idiots to state all has been considered,before finally making Stansted the obvious choice.What do you all think????????????????????

[green granite]

I think they should do what Boris wants, build a 4 runway airport in the Thames Estuary, along with ultra high speed 'mag lev' trains and you could be in central London in about 20mins.

[Manchester Kurt]

Maglev would be pretty pointless given that you will be speeding up or slowing down all the way be it on traditional rail or maglev, the advantage of traditional rail is it could easily be linked to the high speed rail network that will exist before any new airport is built.

[LGS6753]

FAStoat -

Yes, Stansted has had shed-loads of (our) money spent on it, but still people aren't using it as their preference because it's IN THE WRONG PLACE. Sorry to shout, but previous posters have said the same.

During her interview, Ms G kept referring to a Hub airport, and unless LHR is actually closed - and who would do that? - it will remain the UK's only hub airport. So it needs to be expanded. The proposed 'short' runway would offer capacity for feeding short-haul passengers in from domestic and continental flights to connect to a growing network of long-haul services.

Boris Island is a non-starter because for it to succeed as a hub LHR would have to close, and as a stand-alone airport serving London and the south-east it is in the wrong place, has too much competition (LGW, LTN, STN, SEN, LCY), and has enormous political and economic hurdles to jump.

[Skipness One Echo]

The few serious politicians left took a very difficult decision to go with Runway 3 at the end of the last Labour government. It was never going to be wildly popular but was seen a necessary evil.
Cameron then pitches for votes in West London and backs local Putney MP Justine Greening (who?) in her campaign to have less noise for Putney.

This was to be a privately funded construction allowing organic growth for LHR and much needed space. Now a comedic egomaniac with no eye for detail or understanding of numeracy and statistics whom we elected to the non job of Mayor of London sees his place in history as Boris Island Airport. Telling people what they want to hear, all new airport, no noise nuisance, LHR doomed.

This is fantasy. Pre-condition ONE is that to have ANY business case for Fantasy Island, LHR must close.
The consequences :
T5 wasted and closed a fraction into its useful life.
T2 not complete and wasted.
Compensation to BAA ££££££
BA forced to move against their will, they want LHR.
Why? The market, something the Tories used to understand, demands LHR. Not likes, not enjoys, demands.

LHR supports tens of thousands of low paid, crappy jobs. Let's not mince words. Consequence of LHR closure?
xx,000s of people out of work or forced to move. It's difficult enough as a well paid professional to commute. Minimum wage bagges handlers have NO chance of commuting to this new airport.

Finally, the people talking today are well aware they will be gone by the time the s*** hits the fan. Given that we are bust as a country and getting deeper into debt, spending untold billions is beyond us.

We need to allow BAA to get cracking on runway 3 and create the jobs in construction NOW.

[Manchester Kurt]

Does a proportion of the infrastructure costs that are required to get people to and from the airport, be it the Piccadilly Line, Heathrow Express, motorway, road junctions etc not come from the general tax payer?

As such, yes, most of any R3 costs will come from private money, however, any subsequent increase in passenger numbers will see more demand on infrastructure to and from the airport and no doubt the tax payer will end up paying for motorway slip roads, road widening and rail improvements.

Not saying that is right or wrong, but to a certain extent the tax payer would be expected to partially subsidise the business model that BAA and BA operate, i.e. a hub and spoke model.

[WHBM]

Among several ludicrous grand hub airports built way away from the city they are meant to serve which have been complete fiascos, the worst has to be Montreal Mirabel.

Huge land area in the middle of nowhere razed in the 1970s. Vast public expenditure. Airlines refused to move. Why ? Because their CUSTOMERS didn't want to go there. Airlines are not stupid, if it was in their interests to go somewhere they will - and if they will just lose money, they won't.

Not one Canadian or USA service moved from the old airport. However Transatlantic flights were forced to, lost all their connections, and rapidly declined.

Meanwhile Toronto built up as the hub airport of Canada, which Montreal used to be. Air Canada kept their HQ in Montreal only for political reasons. Also, all the commercial businesses of Canada, banks etc, slowly but steadily moved their offices from a city losing accessibility to one gaining it. 50 years ago Montreal was the commercial centre of Canada. Now it's Toronto.

Too late, the international airlines were allowed back to the old airport if they wished. The whole lot left overnight and Mirabel was closed. The terminal buildings lie abandoned in the razed forest. But it was too late.

London beware and take note.

[Skipness One Echo]

Not saying that is right or wrong, but to a certain extent the tax payer would be expected to partially subsidise the business model that BAA and BA operate, i.e. a hub and spoke model.

True, compared to paying for a whole new airport in the sea on Western European Labour rates?

[Manchester Kurt]

or doing neither, accepting that there is a limit on capacity in the south east and look at alternative options that do not include increasing capacity in the south east - question whether transiting passengers add much to the national economy and whether domestic flights could somehow be removed totally.