Heathrow Plans (Merged)

[diddy1234]

Heathrow is in the wrong location and should have moved to reclaimed land in the Thames Estuary years ago.

I do wonder how long it will be before an aircraft has a serious problem (mechanical or terrorist) on finals flying over the centre of London.

BA038 springs to mind or imagine a Lockerbie crash over the center of London.
This is very scarey to think about.
The BA038 crew performed an amazing job getting that aircraft to the airfield.

Maybe WHEN (I don't think its a case of if but when - statistics anyone ?) there is a next time luck will run out !

If the third runway gets the go ahead then Heathrow is going to be one serious logistical mess. Not a very nice looking airport !
However I do understand the economics and why a third runway is needed.

I just wish someone (in the past) had the balls to stand up and say at some stage we need to move Heathrow to a safer location.

RD

[Kelly Hopper]

Instead of going it alone, spending much more than you need to and fecking it up look at how others do it!
Oslo, Stockholm, Riga, and many more. Situate the airport out of town, say 40kms or so and build a good transport infastructure to service it. From all over the country. Not a stupid expensive train to Paddington (which is not the centre of the city and everyone then has to get additional transport) where you have to walk 1/2 way to London just to find the train!
It's been done countless times already but will they follow a system that works? Not on your life. Just like the personel ID cards fiasco. It exists elsewhere so if you are hell bent on having the system, adopt a system with a proven track history not spend billions trying to re-invent the wheel only to find once you have done it you forgot to put spokes in it!
But only in UK do you have to live with this bo77ocks, no-where else!
'Having a bad day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[felixflyer]

OK can we stop talking about fantasy island. Even if this did ever get the go ahead it would be decades before it was operational and would not solve the current problems at Heathrow. We would still need the 3rd runway as well.

And the arguement that we should not redevelop Heathrow because it is in need of redevelopment is really intelligent.

[diddy1234]

ok expand Gatwick then

land is not an issue there

[manintheback]

As usual Government thinking isnt quite on the ball. Only new aircraft (whatever thats supposed to mean) can use the new runway

So all the old ones will just be directed to the existing 2 then...

Net result - meaningless.

[Tyreplug]

I'm dead against it. The country is too London Centric already. What is wrong with Manston? Huge runway and not that far from the capital. Improve the already good road and rail links - job done!

[Alvin]

Quote:
Finally, a Jewish airport plan for the UK.

I had the exact same feeling on that
Today 10:02

Does that mean they would have to close LHR on Saturdays?

[Airline Tycoon]

1) No Mixed Mode

2) Cranford Agreement scrapped

3) Third Runway a go

[Skipness One Echo]

Very sensible in all, I am pleased at the sensible pragmatic approach. Never thought I'd say that about Buff Hoon. Am impressed, Cranford agreement goes and Windsor gets a 3pm switchover when landing on the 09s.

[Artificial Horizon]

I have to agree with BEagle, as someone who flies out of LHR I think the 3rd runway is a BAD idea, the airport at the moment is appallingly organised and run. Officially LHR is 98% capacity, I think that this figure is underestimated and LHR is actually over capacity. Whenever we have quiet periods e.g. post x-mas and the movements are reduced by 3-5% the airport just works beautifully. The 3rd runway should only be built if BAA/NAT's are forced to 'cap' the number of movements, otherwise the greed will take over and the result will be 3 runways at near 100% capacity with the resulting congestion meaning more airbourne holding delays etc. One way of improving LHR overnight would be to remove the restriction on the use of slot pairs, at the moment if the slot is not used more than 80% of the planned time then the airline defaults on the slot and it is returned to BAA/NAT's, the result of this is that we often fly near empty aircraft to destinations all over the world just to retain the slot???!!!! Lifting this alleviation would allow airlines to cut back where necessary.

[Skipness One Echo]

Artificial Horizon that's the plan. Phased and controlled capacity increase. Must say I was astonished, very well thought out IMHO for once by Labour. The Tories came right back on the Environment with a very strident woman laying into Hoon. Over time, the Tories are on the wrong side of this as 1) Business nedds it and 2) It is a major job creation project as we head into recession.

Cameron comes back LEADING on the Green issue, important as it is won't sustain itself I think.

[ORAC]

Hoon's statement to the House: Britain’s Transport Infrastructure

[Bagso]

Wonder what the bods in the BBC will think when they move to Media City in Manchester...

They will then have get on a train for 4 hours to get them to Heathrow assuming they need to fly on the "National Airline " BA to a long haul destination.....

I'll stick with the foriegn airlines DIRECT from Manchester !

[Re-Heat]

Why not mention instead that it is simply a rebuild of the old runway...at the old airfield that Chamberlain arrived at from Munich in 1938, claiming "this means peace in our time"...

[Xeque]

This seems like a better idea.
London Airports expansion
Any chance one of our great and glorious politico's might understand??
And pigs might fly

[RVF750]

Oh the world in which we live, eh?

Take a look at virtually anytime at LHR and you'll see large aircraft waiting at the hold for 10-15 minutes, burning incredible amounts of JET-A1. Look at BNN, LAM or the other holds and every day there's the majority of arrivals going round in circles for the usual 10-15 minutes or more. Again how much fuel burned?

Reducing delays into and out of LHR should be the reason shouted by this incompetent useless bunch of politicians, reductions in fuel used could be in the millions of tonnes per annum, with runways having simultaneous use for either take off or landing depending on flow requirements, or even mixed mode for one of the three- 09L/27R being the obvious guess.

The key to improvemenmts for ecological reasons, something the Greens cannot deny is reduced holding, and taxi times. Win-Win if we all remained logical and sensible.

Just my 2p worth....

[llondel]

Incidentally although as one poster pointed out there were six runways , on this map 23R/05L is labelled Runway number 7 ??

As far as I can tell, the one that is missing is number 3. Isn't that what they're trying to build now?

The game isn't over yet, there's at least one election and a load of other stuff before anyone starts demolishing or digging. Apart from the fact that the people around Stansted will be a trifle annoyed, I still reckon that adding the second runway there and putting in a good, high-speed rail link between there and Heathrow would be better. If they can keep the transit time around an hour, that's often no worse than a practical connection through Heathrow anyway, although there's always someone who's miss the last train. Once that was established, Stansted could be slowly improved to take over as the main airport over the course of a couple of decades.

[Skipness One Echo]

The people of Stansted have no wish for a pictureesque area to be demolished forever to add another runway for Ryanair and easyJet. STN is on the wrong side of London for the vast numer of businesses that rely on Heathrow to connect them to the world.
Stansted as London's #1 is fantasy.

[PAXboy]

Dash&Thump

Take a look at virtually anytime at LHR and you'll see large aircraft waiting at the hold for 10-15 minutes, burning incredible amounts of JET-A1. Look at BNN, LAM or the other holds and every day there's the majority of arrivals going round in circles for the usual 10-15 minutes or more. Again how much fuel burned?

The reason they have so many waiting and holding is to maximise the use of the runways. BUT - if they build the 3rd, they will not just reduce the waiting times, they will add NEW rotations (to justify and pay for it) and so the waiting/holding times will stay the same.

I agree that reducing them now and saving zillions of tons of fuel should be a priority. But it isn't and won't be. My bet is that LGW will get it's second and the LHR 3rd won't happen - certainly not within the next fifteen years.

[EGLD]

As a local resident perfectly comfortable, perhaps even comforted by the noise of the ever present Heathrow, I could expend some energy here siding with the residents of Sipson and Harmondsworth about to have their homes and businesses demolished for an undemocratically approved project by an undemocractic government, but what's the point?

If Labour are re-elected after the mess of the last 5 years and the time between now and a General Election, I'll eat my hat.

The Tories will be elected and scrap this along with ID cards.

Good times ahead.