HEATHROW
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's be honest here though, when it comes down to the Tories holding onto a council and constituency by placating the NIMBYs versus potentially losing it by approving a third runway, you know which side of the argument is going to win.
I have no love for the Tories (to say the least), and I'm ambivalent on the third runway question, but sometimes self-interest isn't the way to go.
I have no love for the Tories (to say the least), and I'm ambivalent on the third runway question, but sometimes self-interest isn't the way to go.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this policy sticks it is the right one. Build another runway at Heathrow and we'll just be back here again in 10 years time wanting a 4th, so that Airline A can pull its single daily flight from MAN-JFK to add a seventeenth daily from LHR to compete with Airline B which has 18 a day. This madness must stop now. Feeding 'demand' in the endless and fruitless search for world 'competitiveness' pays no heed to people or the environment. We built a new runway at MAN 10 years ago, now let's get it used. MAN can fuflfil the role it was intended to do so before this industry lost any strategic control. It can be a spoke off many world hubs to compliment LHR in meeting the air travel needs of the UK. Emirates A380, daily from 01/09/10 shows the way. There IS a market from the regions - just ask all the people stuck in traffic jams on the M6. There may not be as much profit, but what is life for? London is already very well served with an unmatched range of routes and frequencies, it does not need more!
Last edited by roverman; 12th May 2010 at 22:00.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by trafficnotsighted
Once again i think you will find you are in a minority, the government will be more interested in sorting out the economic mess we are in than green issues.
You seem to have missed the point that the government has already decided that there will be no third runway. They will be more interested in sorting out the economic mess we are in than in wasting time on the parliamentary debates and public consultations necessary to approve such a project.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: over the hill
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a third runway up until 2005; it got closed to provide more parking, thus cutting down on airborne holding and, in the process reducing emissions, saving the lives of countless polar bears and sandal-wearing lesbian whales.
-Now can we have our runway back please?
-Now can we have our runway back please?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: gate 67 JFK
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Switch from APD to per aircraft
This will be very interesting and will effect diffrent sectors in diffrent ways, the losers i suspect will be the legacy carriers with low load factors the winners will be the IT carriers that can usually fill every seat.
The loCo's will be effected in a rather interesting way and one that i support, the loCo's currently charge APD (A goverment tax remember) but only hand it over if the pax fly, it is probably the case that Ryanair gain 10's of millions a year in gathering a goverment tax, but not handing it over or back if the pax doesn't travel, the admin fee's for reclaiming are higher than the refund in many cases.
Of course Ryanair are not the only one, just the biggest
Turning to the per plane replacement, the devil will be in the detail and i suspect that they will follow what has been done with vehicle Co2 tax.
This could or should mean that Ryanair and Easyjet will have a lower cost per seat cost (with per plane tax) because they operate more modern aircraft than say bmibaby or Jet2.
Sadly this will hurt Jet2 more than most because they own their aircraft and the value of classic 737's in the UK market will fall through the floor, most of bmibaby's fleet is up for renewal in the next 3 years (if the're still around) likewise bmi regionals fleet will cost far more to operate than Flybe's DH fleet untill fleet renewal later next year. Will freight and night mail flights be effected?
I suspect this will reduce flights into London Heathrow with AMS & CDG gaining, it will be a big boost for the A380.
At least we won't have Broon flying back to EDI to brood or breed every weekend
The loCo's will be effected in a rather interesting way and one that i support, the loCo's currently charge APD (A goverment tax remember) but only hand it over if the pax fly, it is probably the case that Ryanair gain 10's of millions a year in gathering a goverment tax, but not handing it over or back if the pax doesn't travel, the admin fee's for reclaiming are higher than the refund in many cases.
Of course Ryanair are not the only one, just the biggest
Turning to the per plane replacement, the devil will be in the detail and i suspect that they will follow what has been done with vehicle Co2 tax.
This could or should mean that Ryanair and Easyjet will have a lower cost per seat cost (with per plane tax) because they operate more modern aircraft than say bmibaby or Jet2.
Sadly this will hurt Jet2 more than most because they own their aircraft and the value of classic 737's in the UK market will fall through the floor, most of bmibaby's fleet is up for renewal in the next 3 years (if the're still around) likewise bmi regionals fleet will cost far more to operate than Flybe's DH fleet untill fleet renewal later next year. Will freight and night mail flights be effected?
I suspect this will reduce flights into London Heathrow with AMS & CDG gaining, it will be a big boost for the A380.
At least we won't have Broon flying back to EDI to brood or breed every weekend
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly this will hurt Jet2 more than most because they own their aircraft and the value of classic 737's in the UK market will fall through the floor, most of bmibaby's fleet is up for renewal in the next 3 years (if the're still around)
If BMIbaby are here in three years then they will be here for the long haul and they have one of the largest players in the industry behind them...
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rusland - I get the point, i know they have decided that there will not be a third runwway. I just believe that they will come under extreme pressure from big businesses to do a u-turn on such projects if the economic situation continues to worsen or the growth is not quick enough. Roverman is right we need more longhaul runway capacity in the regions which may give Heathrow a bit of time. That said the country will need to have more capacity in the South East in the long term in order to stay competitive with our European partners.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rusland 17
Assuming the answer to that is either none or very few: What does it prove other than to confirm the well-known and irrefutable fact that most human beings are susceptible to NIMBY mentality? 
I wouldn't live in Sipson (nor anywhere else where there was a busy airport on my doorstep) if I was bothered about aircraft movements.
People who choose to live in Sipson choose to live not just near but virtually on one of the busiest international airports in the world:
I have some sympathy for the older residents but are we to assume that those who've moved to Sipson in the past few decades decades didn't notice the airport when deciding to live there? Or that, when deciding to live there, they didn't take into account the probability of increased traffic at an already very busy airport?
I live under the flight path in West London, and have done so (in three different places) for 32 years. I have no sympathy for those of my neighbours who choose to live under the flight path and then whinge about it.
FL
I challenge any pro-expansion contributor on this forum to state, honestly, that they would be in favour of expansion if it were their village that were going to be destroyed or blighted.
Only because there isn't an airport on your doorstep. I'm sure you'd feel differently if you lived in Sipson.
People who choose to live in Sipson choose to live not just near but virtually on one of the busiest international airports in the world:
I have some sympathy for the older residents but are we to assume that those who've moved to Sipson in the past few decades decades didn't notice the airport when deciding to live there? Or that, when deciding to live there, they didn't take into account the probability of increased traffic at an already very busy airport?
I live under the flight path in West London, and have done so (in three different places) for 32 years. I have no sympathy for those of my neighbours who choose to live under the flight path and then whinge about it.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 12th May 2010 at 22:41.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow expansion should be a immediate approval or it should be rellocated as an early decision in this Parliament and construction commenced this year, imho.
The greens and nimby's should be told where to go.
The greens and nimby's should be told where to go.
The point I was aiming to make was that we need to start construction now, so that in 10 years time we have the extra runways and capacity at Heathrow, Stansted etc ready and prepared for the forecast future growth in traffic. Not to be caught thinking in 10 years time "damn, wish we had started buidling those runways!"
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Doncaster
Age: 63
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure how to quote the quote above, but the new coalition in British politics both said, prior to the election, that they did not approve of the third runway. It isn't just 'Greens and Nimbys'.
And with the need to cut the budget deficit in the short-term, there is no way it could go ahead - and neither will the fast rail line, nor any suggestion of relocating Heathrow to the Thames Estuary - in the near future, assuming the state would have to input huge resources at a time when they are cutting what people consider to be vital services such as health and education.
The same problems apply to the Severn Barrage which could generate 10% of Britain's electricity - in the short-term it requires lots of capital which isn't available, and would not show a return for many years, but ultimately be for the nation and the environment's good.
I don't like it - London needs a new/expanded airport - but that's the way it is.
And with the need to cut the budget deficit in the short-term, there is no way it could go ahead - and neither will the fast rail line, nor any suggestion of relocating Heathrow to the Thames Estuary - in the near future, assuming the state would have to input huge resources at a time when they are cutting what people consider to be vital services such as health and education.
The same problems apply to the Severn Barrage which could generate 10% of Britain's electricity - in the short-term it requires lots of capital which isn't available, and would not show a return for many years, but ultimately be for the nation and the environment's good.
I don't like it - London needs a new/expanded airport - but that's the way it is.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK/Australia
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In these straightened times why not use an existing unused runway eg Upper Heyford ?
London Birmingham rail line less than 1 mile, M40 within 3miles , Plenty of brownfield site area for buildings .
London Birmingham rail line less than 1 mile, M40 within 3miles , Plenty of brownfield site area for buildings .
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or even RAF Lynham, that is not so far away, close to a direct motorway and rail link.
I understand they are all keen on aeroplanes flying over their heads there and don't know what will happen to them after 2012 (when they get shut), so the locals would probably be in favour of it - unlike Sipson!
I understand they are all keen on aeroplanes flying over their heads there and don't know what will happen to them after 2012 (when they get shut), so the locals would probably be in favour of it - unlike Sipson!
I'm not afraid to admit that I'm pleased with the decision on the 'third runway'. I am a pilot and I fly for my living but the wholesale expansion of airports to complete with the CdG's and Schiphols of this world is just not viable (in my opinion) if they are surrounded by urban sprawl.
The reason why those airports have grown successfully is precisely because they are not constrained in the same way.
If we need more runways, I'd rather we look at utilising and improving existing sites like UH, Lyneham, Bentwaters/Woodbridge etc (or whatever remains of them).
And if the demand to fly is still too great for the supply, let's put the ticket prices back up and price the unwashed out of the market. After all, that's really what we're driving at here; destroying villages and ancient, irreplaceable woodland/wildlife sanctuaries (in the case of Stansted) for the sake of a flying a greater number of chavs to Tenerife for a fiver each way every summer...
{incoming}
The reason why those airports have grown successfully is precisely because they are not constrained in the same way.
If we need more runways, I'd rather we look at utilising and improving existing sites like UH, Lyneham, Bentwaters/Woodbridge etc (or whatever remains of them).
And if the demand to fly is still too great for the supply, let's put the ticket prices back up and price the unwashed out of the market. After all, that's really what we're driving at here; destroying villages and ancient, irreplaceable woodland/wildlife sanctuaries (in the case of Stansted) for the sake of a flying a greater number of chavs to Tenerife for a fiver each way every summer...
{incoming}
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if they are surrounded by urban sprawl.
This makes no sense, has no strategic planning, will kill domestic access to Heathrow and put the next government in the position of having to solve the problem which will only get worse.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry Heathrow Director, been a tad busy,
Increased monitoring - refers to surveillance of the two arrivals streams to ensure separation is maintained and any blunders off are caught asap. There's a techy radar word which eludes me at the moment.
Trajectory Management - a new buzz phrase coming out of SESAR to denote the 4D control of flights. e.g. only push and start when the whole route is coordinated. Used to be called gate to gate but is now viewed as en-route to en-route.
Hope this helps.
Sir George Cayley
Increased monitoring - refers to surveillance of the two arrivals streams to ensure separation is maintained and any blunders off are caught asap. There's a techy radar word which eludes me at the moment.
Trajectory Management - a new buzz phrase coming out of SESAR to denote the 4D control of flights. e.g. only push and start when the whole route is coordinated. Used to be called gate to gate but is now viewed as en-route to en-route.
Hope this helps.
Sir George Cayley
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: cardiff
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London's newest Airport
Quite aside from Cameron's local international hub (OXF in case you were wondering), best plan is to requisition Northolt (that is the 3rd LHR runway and ridiculously underutilised), take over RAF Benson (having moved pumas to Lynham or Odiham) and Upper Heyford and link the lot with HS2 on its way up to Birmingham and beyond. Three new west London runways in 10, 30 and 40 minutes high speed rail ride linked by a new line in a row up to the Midlands. No Boris Island which is the wrong side of London anyway, no new runways as they already there and no hassle - aside from the neighbours of course!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Increased monitoring - refers to surveillance of the two arrivals streams to ensure separation is maintained and any blunders off are caught asap. There's a techy radar word which eludes me at the moment.>>
OK Sir George. In fact such a system commenced trials at London Airport in the 60s and was still employed sporadically when I started there in Jan '72 so there is nothing new there. In December, 1965, I wrote a magazine article about parallel approaches which explained the need for two final directors plus PAR monitoring involved a total of 8 controllers. Nowadays the Heathrow Approach facility at TC functions with very considerably less than that number of staff.
Mixed mode ops were abandoned in the early days because they provided a) little benefit and b) much additional workload for ATC, especially with ground movement control.
In later years we found that one final director was capable of safely running landing streams to two runways, as frequently happens during the early morning rush (done it myself countless times). I do not know what procedures are currently employed but staff numbers might be a constraining factor if two final controllers were required on a regular basis.
OK Sir George. In fact such a system commenced trials at London Airport in the 60s and was still employed sporadically when I started there in Jan '72 so there is nothing new there. In December, 1965, I wrote a magazine article about parallel approaches which explained the need for two final directors plus PAR monitoring involved a total of 8 controllers. Nowadays the Heathrow Approach facility at TC functions with very considerably less than that number of staff.
Mixed mode ops were abandoned in the early days because they provided a) little benefit and b) much additional workload for ATC, especially with ground movement control.
In later years we found that one final director was capable of safely running landing streams to two runways, as frequently happens during the early morning rush (done it myself countless times). I do not know what procedures are currently employed but staff numbers might be a constraining factor if two final controllers were required on a regular basis.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
skip.rat,
For most of the decade before Runway 23 was taken out of service, it was used on average for a handful of hours per year, and when it was used it decreased the capacity of the airport.
There was a third runway up until 2005; it got closed to provide more parking, thus cutting down on airborne holding and, in the process reducing emissions, saving the lives of countless polar bears and sandal-wearing lesbian whales.
-Now can we have our runway back please?
-Now can we have our runway back please?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Delta will launch a third daily flight to JFK with B764 from 19th September.
Delta Adding Flights Between New York and Key Business Markets - May 11, 2010
Delta Adding Flights Between New York and Key Business Markets - May 11, 2010