Last full-length runway built in the UK ?

[jabird]

Gatwick I believe has a long term planning restriction that blocks a second runway there for many years

Ends in 2019. Chance of proposing, planning, approving and building a runway there before 2019. Nil. So surely it is now an irrelevance?

FDF - more one we've done on other threads, but considering the challenges of getting a 3rd runway at LHR, I'd rate the chances of getting a fourth within the next 20 years as somewhere below the nil chance mentioned above.

Now as for HKG, I supposed it used to be "part" of greater UK - there is also the small question of land reclamation, which ain't cheap, and wouldn't such a runway also need quite a substantial taxiway in order to make it widely enough space from the other 2?

Speaking of colonies, let's not forget MNI, re-opened in 2005 after the previous airport was covered in volcanic debris. Not strictly new in the capacity sense, but still very much a new runway, and as per above,at 553m full length for the kind of services operated.

[NorthSouth]

On the general subject of another runway in the London area:

London area airports (LHR/LGW/LCY/LTN/STN/SEN) movements:

2001: 1.075m
2011: 1.072m

In the next 10-20 years we will have airlines having to comply with carbon trading, and the UK government having to meet its Climate Change Act 2008 requirement to cut emissions of green house gas emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

In addition we have seen a shift towards larger aircraft, with turboprops and E135/145 types now rare at Heathrow while A380 movements are increasing.

On top of that I can't see any prospect of fuel prices doing anything other than a continuous upward trend.

There's no need for additional runways.

NS

[Phileas Fogg]

NS,

You forgot to include London/Ashford and London/Oxford in your 'London' list of airports.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "FDF - more one we've done on other threads, but considering the challenges of getting a 3rd runway at LHR, I'd rate the chances of getting a fourth within the next 20 years as somewhere below the nil chance mentioned above."

Agreed, jabird, hence reference to the flying pigs, but realisticly a 4th runway is needed, and as it is taking so long to get a 3rd built, we might as well include a 4th, else we will be going through all this nonsense again.


Quote:"On the general subject of another runway in the London area:

London area airports (LHR/LGW/LCY/LTN/STN/SEN) movements:

2001: 1.075m
2011: 1.072m

In the next 10-20 years we will have airlines having to comply with carbon trading, and the UK government having to meet its Climate Change Act 2008 requirement to cut emissions of green house gas emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

In addition we have seen a shift towards larger aircraft, with turboprops and E135/145 types now rare at Heathrow while A380 movements are increasing.

On top of that I can't see any prospect of fuel prices doing anything other than a continuous upward trend.

There's no need for additional runways.

NS"

Not so, NorthSouth, clearly there is, you need to look at the longterm, because it takes a millenium to get expansion approved. Aircraft are becoming increasingly quieter and cleaner, there is a growing growing demand and need for people to travel, there is increasing prosperity in "emerging" markets which will bring more travellers - business and leisure.


Quote: "You forgot to include London/Ashford and London/Oxford in your 'London' list of airports."

...and "London West" (BOH)?

[NorthSouth]

You forgot to include London/Ashford and London/Oxford in your 'London' list of airports

Only following the CAA stats convention for definition of London airports. But assuming Lydd's runway/terminal extension is given the go-ahead, and Oxford has some capacity to meet London area demand, that only strengthens my point.
FDF:

you need to look at the longterm

Exactly. Which is why a world in which carbon emissions limits have to be met and not just talked about, and where the very demand you talk about drives oil prices up relentlessly, is highly likely to be incompatible with the assumptions of never-ending expansion of air transport which still prevail.
NS

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Exactly. Which is why a world in which carbon emissions limits have to be met and not just talked about, and where the very demand you talk about drives oil prices up relentlessly, is highly likely to be incompatible with the assumptions of never-ending expansion of air transport which still prevail.
NS "

No, NorthSouth, meant long term, sorry if it was not clear. You're talking very much about the present and the short term. All things are cyclical and at present things look grim, but they haven't always and there's no rule stating that they always will.

Oil prices are up and down depending on geo-political developments, but new reserves are being found all the time (because they have to as traditional supplies become unreliable).

Hybrid fuels are being experimented with and that is just a start. Technology is making aircraft quieter and cleaner, because of legal and other requirements. The same happened with cars, because it had to.

Major expansion in air transport will continue, especially as roads and railways get clogged up and people become increasingly mobile. There is no "putting the genie back in the bottle" as the green lobby would like to see.

Who know what the future holds, but history teaches that neccesity is the mother of invention.

And what does that bring us back to....?!

[NorthSouth]

meant long term, sorry if it was not clear

perfectly clear, which is why I was talking about known constraints to 2050
NS

[jabird]

Major expansion in air transport will continue, especially as roads and railways get clogged up and people become increasingly mobile. There is no "putting the genie back in the bottle" as the green lobby would like to see.

There is a difference between our desire to keep visiting new places and a need to get there quickly and to do so in person.

So even if you put the green lobby to one side - something neither the current nor past lot are showing any likelihood of doing - you do still need to find an energy source for all this travel.

You are right about new oil finds, but demand is also rising across Asia and South America, so they have to keep drilling. Synthetics or biofuels are still at some premium, whereas the cost of renewable electricity production is likely to keep falling.

So I agree that we may well still see some expansion over time, but I'm not so sure about the major.

Someone somewhere must have done some robust models on this - shove in oil upto $1000 a barrel or wherever, play with the economy, populations and so on.

At the top end, Concorde has gone and not been replaced. I suggest the most urgent communications can now indeed be done by video conferencing and so on.

I don't think for one minute that people will stop travelling for business or pleasure, but they will accept different ways of getting there.

We've already seen a lot of internal flights moved over to rail within England. To suggest that the rails are too crowded whilst at the same time saying we need airport expansion is a completely inconsistent argument.

Unfortunately, the government's line that we can meet future demand at Heathrow by building a high speed line to places where rail already dominates the market is even more inconsistent.

However, with a big enough crystal ball and a long enough timeline, the answer must surely lie with maglevs - once they become as fast as flying and cheaper to build than motorways or high speed railways. Which might be sometime at the latter end of the next 50 years!