HEATHROW
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And how much of that "£11bn" is already planned versus additional as a direct result of the 3rd runway?
From what I've read, a fair chunk is already planned therefore shouldn't be included.
(Note: Most plans are still being developed so final figures are hard to establish)
From what I've read, a fair chunk is already planned therefore shouldn't be included.
(Note: Most plans are still being developed so final figures are hard to establish)
Bagso, I I don't know whether you are being purposely cryptic or what. You initial comment was.
You then wrote
You see now why I found you comment confusing?
Runways, terminals, taxiways etc. are all paid for by BAA and will not be in the governments spending review.
Transport infrastructure paid by the taxpayer will be.
Chancellor mentioned expansion of infastructure in road, rail, energy, rivers and flood defences..... interestingly no mention of runways!
Infrastructure of road and rail indeed. Runways no.
Infrastructure of road and rail indeed. Runways no.
FelixFlyer
...well unless you have been on another planet, the taxpayer was down for £6bn but it "now" seems HAL will have to find the money for all the road/rail infastructure unless it's buried in that juicy £11bn transport for London budget!
£11bn.....
Maybe it's you that need to keep up.
...well unless you have been on another planet, the taxpayer was down for £6bn but it "now" seems HAL will have to find the money for all the road/rail infastructure unless it's buried in that juicy £11bn transport for London budget!
£11bn.....
Maybe it's you that need to keep up.
You see now why I found you comment confusing?
Runways, terminals, taxiways etc. are all paid for by BAA and will not be in the governments spending review.
Transport infrastructure paid by the taxpayer will be.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never said the actual "runways" would be, clearly that is nonsense.
The taxpayer was however earmarked for surrounding roads rail and tunnels but I'm clear that recent comments by ministers have indicated that the government would not be footing the bill.
Note - nothing was referenced specifically in the Autumn Spending review in the same way as HS2. Other major projects were also detailed at a lesser cost, at 6bn I would have expected this to have appeared.
That "suggested" the treasurey was indeed playing hardball although I remain sceptical.
The reference to Transport To London was incase the cost was being submerged in the general costs of transport within London!
The taxpayer was however earmarked for surrounding roads rail and tunnels but I'm clear that recent comments by ministers have indicated that the government would not be footing the bill.
Note - nothing was referenced specifically in the Autumn Spending review in the same way as HS2. Other major projects were also detailed at a lesser cost, at 6bn I would have expected this to have appeared.
That "suggested" the treasurey was indeed playing hardball although I remain sceptical.
The reference to Transport To London was incase the cost was being submerged in the general costs of transport within London!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 2 DME
Age: 54
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note - nothing was referenced specifically in the Autumn Spending review in the same way as HS2. Other major projects were also detailed at a lesser cost, at 6bn I would have expected this to have appeared.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I had factored in the time line but working on say 10 12 years and the current spending review taking us to 2021.
That only leaves 4 - 5 years to both start and indeed complete the widening of the M25 , new tunneling plus additional rail connectivity etc.
That seems a massive undertaking but maybe the infastructure would lag behind the runway opening.
That only leaves 4 - 5 years to both start and indeed complete the widening of the M25 , new tunneling plus additional rail connectivity etc.
That seems a massive undertaking but maybe the infastructure would lag behind the runway opening.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least the "locals" will be footing the bill.
Frank...note that reference to "outrageous costs"!
Or does WW know nothing.
Just a footnote from the spending review.
Chancellor mentioned expansion of infastructure in road, rail, energy, rivers and flood defences..... interestingly no mention of runways!
I would have thought they would have made political capital from mentioning Heathrow and
"expanding our airports".
Frank...note that reference to "outrageous costs"!
Or does WW know nothing.
Just a footnote from the spending review.
Chancellor mentioned expansion of infastructure in road, rail, energy, rivers and flood defences..... interestingly no mention of runways!
I would have thought they would have made political capital from mentioning Heathrow and
"expanding our airports".
Willie Walsh obviously knows a lot, clearly a lot more than us. Try and see it from his point of view: his bosses, the shareholders expect dividends. Higher costs for IAG could mean lower dividends for shareholders.
Higher airport charges will pay for the rwy not UK taxpayers (this is a consequence of privately owned airports) and IAG will pay a large proportion of these although this will not significantly effect IAG's viability.
Walsh also knows that IAG has nowhere else to go and that, in reality, IAG will have to "suck it up". So for shareholders' benefit, he has to go through the motions. Of course if the third rwy ever materialises, we'll all be long gone, or at least retired.
George Osborne did not mention rwys perhaps because the decision has not been made public as no announcements have been made. Allegedly, a decision is imminent, but don't hold your breath.
As for M4 widening, as mentioned in the Guardian article, it will be necessary anyway, those who drive on it regularly may argue that it already needs widening. The reason is simple, between junction 3 (Hounslow) and junction 8 (Maidenhead) there are 7 junctions in about 16 mi. - that's an average of one every 2 mi. near enough.
Junctions close together = lots of lane-changing = slowing down to a crawl = congestion. It's the same on the M25 in the area. So "improvements" will happen anyway. Only the M25 and A4 tunnels are rwy related.
As for the EU-funded Irish motorways, also mentioned in the Guardian article, EU bribes helped obtain "yes" votes in the various "second time" referendums on further EU integration. These were held because the "first time" referendums produced the "wrong" answer.
If it looks like the UK may vote to leave the EU, expect a load of bribes from Brussels, a good opportunity to get all UK infrastructure paid for by the EU.
The other bad thing is that with the introduction of A380's into the fleet, these all go from T5 C. There is no business lounge there. With the attitude that passengers only need to know a gate number about 50 mins before take off makes things a bit of a rush from the lounge in T5 main. About time BA got a lounge in T5 C.
It's taken 7 years to get a lounge in LHR-5 for those not allowed in the BA lounges (i.e economy and premium economy pax, blue and bronze Executive Club members). Very fair point nonetheless!
It is extraordinary to look at a timetable from the 1960s, when in summer there were very considerable movements in the small hours by 707s, Comets, etc, off to Mediterranean points, plus all the freighters mentioned above.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plane Stupid
Plane Stupid, an anti-Heathrow expansion group parked a transit-style van in the middle of the airport tunnel this morning. Cynically, the entry tunnel to the airport was blocked rather than the exit tunnel for maximum disruption, causing misery and aggravation for many. This caused gridlock throughout the area so it wasn't just airport-related traffic affected.
On radio and television interviews, Plane Stupid spokesmen stated that they opposed the rwy on grounds of pollution. How much pollution did they cause by bringing traffic to a standstill, idling and/or in low gear, especially all those diesel vehicles? Touch of hypocrisy there no doubt. That really is stupid.
But perhaps even more stupid is doing it a time of high threat alert, a few days after the Paris and Bamako atrocities, when everyone is very twitchy.
Stupid and reckless! They were very lucky that this stunt was not mistaken for an attack and that they are still alive. Yes, it is as serious as that, a van blocking the tunnel (probably parked directly under the rwy), what are the authorities expected to think?
Plane stupid or plain stupid?
Reckless? No question.
On radio and television interviews, Plane Stupid spokesmen stated that they opposed the rwy on grounds of pollution. How much pollution did they cause by bringing traffic to a standstill, idling and/or in low gear, especially all those diesel vehicles? Touch of hypocrisy there no doubt. That really is stupid.
But perhaps even more stupid is doing it a time of high threat alert, a few days after the Paris and Bamako atrocities, when everyone is very twitchy.
Stupid and reckless! They were very lucky that this stunt was not mistaken for an attack and that they are still alive. Yes, it is as serious as that, a van blocking the tunnel (probably parked directly under the rwy), what are the authorities expected to think?
Plane stupid or plain stupid?
Reckless? No question.
Well you would think so. But the radio carried reports of the van still being across the road (with 5 protesters padlocked to it) several hours after they put it there.
So much for "heightened security". Quite why the bolt cutters were not produced 5 minutes after it went in place, and the van pushed out of the way by an excavator a couple of minutes later, one can't understand. According to the news reports, no arrests were made either.
So much for "heightened security". Quite why the bolt cutters were not produced 5 minutes after it went in place, and the van pushed out of the way by an excavator a couple of minutes later, one can't understand. According to the news reports, no arrests were made either.
This is correct for scheduling but in practice any delayed late departures or very late arrivals are able to be handled, and the balance is maintained by bringing in one or more of those due before 0600 in just after 0600. Because the limit is a global one across a season rather than a fixed amount per day this can be done when convenient. So you do get the odd 4 hours late 0200 arrival.
In summer there is always sufficient unused movement quota to accommodate them, in fact it's not unknown to see some flights with an STA after 0600 that are ahead of schedule being allowed to land before 6.
In winter, while actual movements are always over the season quota limit, there is provision to carry over some unused quota from the previous summer, which is normally sufficient.
And of course during periods of prolonged disruption, flights aren't counted against the night quota at all.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like WHBM I'm pretty concerned that there was no plan in place for someone blocking the LHR tunnels - they've been an obvious target for demonstrators/terrorists ever since teh they were opened
If that had been 10 tons of explosive we'd have been down to a single runway in a few milliseconds.......................... and no way of getting to T2 & T3 except by rail or the cargo tunnel from the south...................
If that had been 10 tons of explosive we'd have been down to a single runway in a few milliseconds.......................... and no way of getting to T2 & T3 except by rail or the cargo tunnel from the south...................
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 2 DME
Age: 54
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso, one other thing to factor in is that any reference to allocating funding for projects associated with R3 would potentially have been seen as pre-determining the outcome of the Government's decision on the matter and leave the door wide open for a legal challenge (even though there are likely to be plenty of them when the decision is finally made!)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plane Stupid Action
Interesting radio "interview"
'Plane Stupid' Heathrow protester ripped to shreds live on radio | London | News | London Evening Standard
And three charged
http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articl...w+protest.html
'Plane Stupid' Heathrow protester ripped to shreds live on radio | London | News | London Evening Standard
And three charged
http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articl...w+protest.html
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the problem with a democracy is that nothing gets done. if and when a 3rd runway ever gets the go ahead, it will be 25 years out of date.
at least in china, if they need a new airport, they bulldoze the villages , lay the tarmac and it's up and running in 18 months.
if only the residents of sipson could be relocated and move the JCB's in, then heathrow might just be able to cope with demand. let's face it, that's not going to happen !!
at least in china, if they need a new airport, they bulldoze the villages , lay the tarmac and it's up and running in 18 months.
if only the residents of sipson could be relocated and move the JCB's in, then heathrow might just be able to cope with demand. let's face it, that's not going to happen !!
If that had been 10 tons of explosive we'd have been down to a single runway in a few milliseconds.......................... and no way of getting to T2 & T3 except by rail or the cargo tunnel from the south...................
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looming decision on Heathrow threatens to send Tories into tailspin | The Sunday Times
For good or bad we will know this week with opening in about 20 years....
But then maybe not
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34971277
Interesting that this report which looks at environmental issues again says HAL must foot the bill for the surface transport!
For good or bad we will know this week with opening in about 20 years....
But then maybe not
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34971277
Interesting that this report which looks at environmental issues again says HAL must foot the bill for the surface transport!
Last edited by Bagso; 1st Dec 2015 at 05:57.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3rd runaway delay?
Story in the "Times" that the Cabinet will defer the decision on LHR 3rd runway "into 2016" due to concerns about air pollution
and so it starts.....................
and so it starts.....................
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And not just 2016 but..... "late" 2016 !
Having said that the government could hardly sign up to the "Paris accord" then announce a 3rd runway 48 hours later!
Ironically it's actually bad news for Gatwick as well.
The long grass gets longer!
They seem to have done a good job on the BBC dressing up a substantial deferrement as the firm hand of government!
Sir Humphrey would be delighted!
Having said that the government could hardly sign up to the "Paris accord" then announce a 3rd runway 48 hours later!
Ironically it's actually bad news for Gatwick as well.
The long grass gets longer!
They seem to have done a good job on the BBC dressing up a substantial deferrement as the firm hand of government!
Sir Humphrey would be delighted!
Last edited by Bagso; 7th Dec 2015 at 11:30.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC story here
'Six-month delay' for Heathrow decision - BBC News
Suggests at least 6 month delay
Will then be after London Mayoral election where the two main candidates are against
Looks like they will order another Environmental review.
Likely announcement of this on Thursday
Politics at work - or not as the case may be
'Six-month delay' for Heathrow decision - BBC News
Suggests at least 6 month delay
Will then be after London Mayoral election where the two main candidates are against
Looks like they will order another Environmental review.
Likely announcement of this on Thursday
Politics at work - or not as the case may be
