Heathrow expansion won't happen

[jabird]

It only takes for UKIP,Greens/BNP, and all the other odds and sods to gain a few seats, to make out government on a par with Greece.

Brown tried to do a "rainbow coalition" of everyone but the Tories, but it would have been a complete mess.

Realistically, Libs are going to lose so many seats, they are unlikely to have much to bargain with, but they may just have the balance of power.

If there is any party likely to have enough seats to talk, it would be the SNP, assuming they are still with us, which is more likely than not. Now things get interesting - SNP have previously said they don't vote on matters only affecting England. Now of course, they could easily turn round and say that doesn't apply, because they want access to LHR. Except they wouldn't give their co-operation so easily! Expect to find HS2 suddenly extending to Scotland as part of the deal, which might actually mean it goes somewhere worthwhile at last!

Then HS2 might actually free up some slots at Heathrow. Expect the SNP to say they want DND and INV safeguarded. At that point, please hope the majority partner turns round and says you can't have that, because it is none of your business, none of our business, and solely BAA's business what they do with them!

[Ernest Lanc's]

The Liberals are going to lose seats..That's inevitable.

But I have been watching trends in Scotland for a while. and I doubt the SNP will have any more seats than Cleggs brigade,

This morning there were also some Scottish YouGov figures for the Scottish Fabians. They had topline figures for Westminister voting intention in Scotland of CON 15%, LAB 43%, LDEM 7%, SNP 29%.

Labour have recovered strongly, in their Scottish heartlands. So Salmond won't IMO have much to bargain with.
UK Polling Report

At the end of the day the government whoever they are, will have to either agree to the third runway, or a brand new airport.

We can't afford a new airport, so a third runway it is, or London and the UK will miss out big style.

Well: I hope I am right!!

[jabird]

I doubt the SNP will have any more seats than Cleggs brigade

Maybe not, but then again, they aren't putting up candidates south of Hadrians - except they should be in Corby!

We can't afford a new airport, so a third runway it is,

I think we've been through the options enough times on this and other threads. Fantasy Island is not an option. Gatwick could only work if government could dictate that it HAD to become a hub airport, and we've been there too.

Birmingham is a rank outsider loved by politicians, and of course one or two Brummies, but once you look at surface access by anything other than a high speed rail line that doesn't serve the terminal directly and that doesn't even exist yet, you realise it is as ridiculous as FBI.

So the only other option is to do NOTHING. Oddly enough, I think that's a better idea than any of the others apart from LHR3. To make that argument respectable, you'd have to come out with the line -

we hate aviation, it is dirty, smelly and noisy, it takes more money out of the UK than it brings in and we just don't want it.

Now all of those arguments have an element of truth in them, but they can be robustly rebutted too.

At least the do nothing line is a policy - unlike the dithering we've had now for far too long.

[PAXboy]

Ernest Lanc's

...probably Cameron will dismantle our nuclear deterrent ...

Top military chiefs go cold on nuclear deterrent - UK Politics - UK - The Independent
Senior military commanders have privately questioned whether Britain needs to maintain its current level of nuclear deterrence when the country's ageing Trident submarines are decommissioned.

Nick Harvey, the former defence minister who until September had responsibility for the Government's nuclear capability review, said officers had expressed reservations to him about both the costs and the benefits of such a deterrent.

[Ernest Lanc's]

PAXboy
The above is rumour by the Liberals..This was always on the cards when Cameron allowed them in bed.

The same has been said in France by lefties..

Fact is - If the UK or France give up their independent nuclear deterrent..They will have no influence (leverage) at all-- This will result in the UK losing it's seat on the UN security council. Cameron knows this..

To go back on topic..The Tories bedding the Liberals, is probably the main reason, no real solution to over capacity in London, has yet (if ever) to be addressed.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "There is little chance that Milbland will change his position on Heathrow, and he is so dull that he is unlikely to do a Kinnock on election eve, and you'll never catch him calling anyone a Pleb, even if he is to paternalistic academic elitism what Mitchell is to Toffs."

What is his position? No one knows, but it could easily change.

Quote: "How do we know what he is?..I have heard him say what Cameron and Osborne have done wrong, I have not heard his plans for, well anything..

With Ed on the third runway..It will be aye or naye, depending on who asked the question."

Exactly,but then he doesn't need to, yet.


Quote: "BTW..Why Cameron did not go it alone is beyond me...Wilson led a minority government, and won the following election, with ease."

Have made the same point many times, a lack of experience maybe, a failure to learn from history more likely. More recently, Steve Harper, the Canadian Conservative prime minister led three minority governments before achieving a majority.


Quote: "It's not impossible that UKIP will have some say in the forming of a government."

It's unlikely that they will win any seats, they don't do the work at grassroots level and, unlike the Greens and the Libdems, they haven't learned to "target" specific councils, seats, etc..

Their only way of influencing the election result will be by taking disgruntled voters away from their traditional parties, especially
Conservative voters over broken promises on the EU, allowing marginal seats to change hands.


Quote: "Maybe: It only takes for UKIP,Greens/BNP, and all the other odds and sods to gain a few seats, to make out government on a par with Greece.

We are in a coalition now, what's next I would not like to guess, maybe Cameron austerity will pay dividends..I doubt that without growth.

Cameron puts a chap in charge with sympathy for a third runway, then promptly says - no definitely not. We know Clegg does not want one, that's why Cameron dare not say he does.
Ed..i am not sure he knows there is a problem.

I still thing there will be a 3rd runway at Heathrow..probably Cameron will dismantle our nuclear deterrent and abolish the House of Lords, to get Cleggy to agree."

Won't be a Greece style election result, we don't use proportional voting, good job!

There will be a third rwy, but not at the expense of a nuclear deterent, or the House of Lords.


Quote: "At the end of the day the government whoever they are, will have to either agree to the third runway, or a brand new airport.

We can't afford a new airport, so a third runway it is, or London and the UK will miss out big style."

Exactly, there would also be customer resistance from to a new airport.

Quote: "Senior military commanders have privately questioned whether Britain needs to maintain its current level of nuclear deterrence when the country's ageing Trident submarines are decommissioned.

Nick Harvey, the former defence minister who until September had responsibility for the Government's nuclear capability review, said officers had expressed reservations to him about both the costs and the benefits of such a deterrent."

Harvey's a Libdem so what do you expect?

The reason the nuclear deterrent stays is: prestige, prestige, prestige!

It means a place at the top table and a seat on the UN security council. It means punching above our weight.

It's needed more than ever now, the world is far more dangerous now than in the cold war.

[PAXboy]

Fairdealfrank

The reason the nuclear deterrent stays is: prestige, prestige, prestige!

It means a place at the top table and a seat on the UN security council. It means punching above our weight.

It's needed more than ever now, the world is far more dangerous now than in the cold war.

Off to Jet Blast we go ...

[Ernest Lanc's]

Fairdealfrank

Won't be a Greece style election result, we don't use proportional voting, good job!

The result was the same..We had parties sctraching arround for bedfellows.

The mould has been cast..we again will have a hung parliament after the next election.

How on Earth can a PM give the OK for a heathrow extention, with an eviromentalist party keeping him in power?.

A third runway will come, simply because it's the proposition that costs the least.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Realistically, Libs are going to lose so many seats, they are unlikely to have much to bargain with, but they may just have the balance of power.

If there is any party likely to have enough seats to talk, it would be the SNP, assuming they are still with us, which is more likely than not. Now things get interesting - SNP have previously said they don't vote on matters only affecting England. Now of course, they could easily turn round and say that doesn't apply, because they want access to LHR. Except they wouldn't give their co-operation so easily! Expect to find HS2 suddenly extending to Scotland as part of the deal, which might actually mean it goes somewhere worthwhile at last!"

The SNP can command a majority at Holyrood, but doesn't usually do well in Westminster elections. It will be a pleasant surprise if they end up with more seats than the Libdems.

SNP MPs could vote on Heathrow expansion: it's a UK matter, not just an English one, and vitally important to Scotland.

Quote: Then HS2 might actually free up some slots at Heathrow. Expect the SNP to say they want DND and INV safeguarded. At that point, please hope the majority partner turns round and says you can't have that, because it is none of your business, none of our business, and solely BAA's business what they do with them!

It's pointless for high speed rail to go to Birmingham, it's first stop northwards should be Ringway then Manchester Piccadilly, or Leeds on the other side, then on to Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, etc.. To provide the journey times expected of it, it needs to do long distances without stops.

Either way, this is way into the future, if at all.

High speed rail won't free up any slots at LHR, domestic connectivity is always needed.



Quote: "The result was the same..We had parties sctraching arround for bedfellows.

The mould has been cast..we again will have a hung parliament after the next election."

Fair point, Ernest Lanc's, but the maths ensured there were only two options: a Con-Lib coalition or a minority Con government. Cameron made the wrong choice.

Funnily enough, until the crisis, Greece always elected majority governments, either PASOK (Socialist) or New Democracy (Conservative).

Quote: "How on Earth can a PM give the OK for a heathrow extention, with an eviromentalist party keeping him in power?."

In theory, he can't. In practice, he could easily. Let's face it, the Libdems won't walk, particularly on this issue.

Quote: "A third rrunway will come, simply because it's the proposition that costs the least."

Exactly, and it's the the option that "does what it says on the tin".

[jabird]

(HSR) To provide the journey times expected of it, it needs to do long distances without stops.

True, but it also needs to add capacity where it is needed, so other stops get put in. The issue is not so much with additional stops being there, but with the ability to schedule longer distance services through the station without stopping trains getting in the way. The only station we've got plans for so far that this is relevant to is the M42 BHX Parkway Parkway that will have this feature.

High speed rail won't free up any slots at LHR, domestic connectivity is always needed.

Not many as currently planned, but it could. The train already wins to MAN / LBA / LPL / MME etc. The biggest swing would be NCL - U2 already gone, but LHR services would become very marginal. Time savings as currently proposed bring EDI & GLA to c. 3h40 - so that's far more of a threat to easyJet.

However - if HSR went straight to the central belt - ie HS dedicated line all the way - then journey would be down to c. 2h30, at which point the LHR & LCY services would be threatened, as night follows day.

Given current number of LHR-EDI & GLA rotations, you could certainly expect a few slots to be freed up in this scenario, and there would be demands for more services to ABZ & INV in lieu, as these are never going to be replaced by rail for the business and higher yielding leisure users.

[jabird]

How on Earth can a PM give the OK for a heathrow extention, with an eviromentalist party keeping him in power?

Don't forget "go green vote blue" aswell.

I've always believed in the theory of HSR, but nothing put me off HS2 quicker than it being presented as the alternative to short haul flights and a third runway at LHR.

Whatever positions you might take on the runway issue, or indeed high speed rail, neither is an alternative for the other. They need to be seen as projects with their own pros and cons, including costs, although the major difference with LHR R3 is that it is privately funded.

I think that, with the help of various analysts and the treasury, most of the cabinet are slowly coming round to the fact that the projects have to be treated separately.

The realistic likely transfer from air to rail might be in the region of 1m pax pa with the scheme as it currently stands. Certainly enough to juggle a few slots around, but still only around 1.5% of overall volume, which will, of course, be rapidly replaced by other European and long haul services.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Not many as currently planned, but it could. The train already wins to MAN / LBA / LPL / MME etc. The biggest swing would be NCL - U2 already gone, but LHR services would become very marginal. Time savings as currently proposed bring EDI & GLA to c. 3h40 - so that's far more of a threat to easyJet."

It's not train or air, both are needed. The train only wins on city centre to city centre.

If it's 2 hours up to London on suburban trains plus tube(s), in order to catch a long distance train, (and you don't have to be very far out of London for this to be the case), things look very different indeed, especially if you're lugging baggage and there's an airport nearby.

Price is also a factor, it is not always possible to get cheap train fares and it's a very complicated fare structure. Air is often cheaper. Apart from point to point, there is also the transfer traffic to think about

Of course there is no choice from LBA, LPL, MME, though there soon will be from LBA, BA are reinstating the former BD LHR-LBA service.

Quote: "However - if HSR went straight to the central belt - ie HS dedicated line all the way - then journey would be down to c. 2h30, at which point the LHR & LCY services would be threatened, as night follows day.

Given current number of LHR-EDI & GLA rotations, you could certainly expect a few slots to be freed up in this scenario, and there would be demands for more services to ABZ & INV in lieu, as these are never going to be replaced by rail for the business and higher yielding leisure users."

Would not say "threatened". LCY has thrived and prospered at the same time as train services have become increasingly faster and more frequent. That tells us that both modes are needed.

Agreed that domestic frequencies on trunk routes may be reduced and redistributed to thinner routes.

However, we are unlikely to see high speed rail in our lifetime and especially not to Scotland/north England.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Don't forget "go green vote blue" aswell."

And Clegg came out with that puerile nonsense that you need to mix yellow with blue to make green. Tell that to Caroline Lucas!

And don't forget that the "greenest government ever" hasn't managed to do anything practical to address the issue plastic shopping bags and problem of over packaging in the retail trade.

However, they're very good at taxing the hell out of us, particularly hidden taxes on utility bills, etc., and using phoney arguments to block the construction of vitally needed infrastructure.

Quote: "I've always believed in the theory of HSR, but nothing put me off HS2 quicker than it being presented as the alternative to short haul flights and a third runway at LHR."

Me too, and the fact that the present plans are nonsense!

Quote: "Whatever positions you might take on the runway issue, or indeed high speed rail, neither is an alternative for the other. They need to be seen as projects with their own pros and cons, including costs, although the major difference with LHR R3 is that it is privately funded."

Precisely, all transport modes should complement each other: air, rail and road. An integrated transport system is what is needed.

Quote: "I think that, with the help of various analysts and the treasury, most of the cabinet are slowly coming round to the fact that the projects have to be treated separately."

This is almost certainly the case, and one is privately funded.

Quote: "The realistic likely transfer from air to rail might be in the region of 1m pax pa with the scheme as it currently stands. Certainly enough to juggle a few slots around, but still only around 1.5% of overall volume, which will, of course, be rapidly replaced by other European and long haul services."

If high speed rail doesn't go past Birmingham, the transfer from air to rail will be nil: there's no longer any air services between BHX and any London airport. IIRC the BD LHR-BHX finished in the late 1980s(?).

There is no indication that it will, the government has refused to include the route north of Birmingham in the Bill that it has to put before Parliament before the high speed rail can start.

[jabird]

There is no indication that it will, the government has refused to include the route north of Birmingham in the Bill that it has to put before Parliament before the high speed rail can start.

If this is the way they do it, then any MP with even the most basic of calculators has to vote to reject the scheme. If you take out the more dubious "WEIs" (benefits based on secondary benefits, a lot of which is time savings on the highly flawed assumption that no-one works on the train - ever), then with the latest economic forecasts, the government will get 90p back for every £1 it puts in. What sort of case is that?

Ironically, the case for the second part looks a great deal better, as I'm sure the extension to Scotland would, but you have to assess a project on its own merits as it stands, and this one is one hulking great #fail.

Meanwhile, they get the runway for "free" - if they want to be seen providing a major infrastructure stimulus, better to take the dirty airport project than the "clean" train, which has actually just stashed the pollution problems it creates to the power stations on the Trent.

[Fairdealfrank]

FlightGlobal ROUTES: Heathrow debate has regional implications

Exactly, most of the country wants and needs Heathrow expansion ASAP because of the connectivity to the wider world. It is a national issue not just a local one. How many small airports up and down the UK are suffering because of a lack of a decent link to Heathrow?

There are far more MPs (in both parties) that support Heathrow expansion than oppose it, and this would become apparent in any free vote. In the case of the Libdems they are just against it for the sake of it as usual, so no change there.

[Baltasound]

"Most of the country" couldn't give a **** about Heathrow. Neither does most of the country need Heathrow to have a third runway. Neither is it fully funded by the private sector, so let us please please bury that hoary old chestnut.

The Lib Dems aren't against the expansion of Heathrow for the sake of it, they are against it for the very good reason that (the airport) is in the wrong place, expansion will be environmentally entertaining and will further benefit Heathrow and not a lot else besides and from a pragmatic point of view any expansion will run into 10 years of court time as the ECJ will become involved especially in terms of various directives.

The majority of Heathrow's traffic is for pleasure according to the stats. Perhaps a free market for slot auctioning is required to actually ascertain how much expansion is required for the x000 pairs to remote Chinese cities....

[On the beach]

Meanwhile, in Scotland, Emirates are doubling their daily flights from GLA to DXB and Qatar are commencing daily services from EDI to DOH next year.

All we need now is HS2 to be extended to the "frozen North" and punters down south will have another alternative to LHR.

[beamender99]

Thames Estuary Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A map of the proposals to date. ( take note of the key to the locations and then expand the map) #5 is Shivering sands ( Boris Island )

The latest word from Boris
BBC News - Boris Johnson warns of 'risk of inertia' over Heathrow future

A comment was made that the transport links were £80M ?

[Ernest Lanc's]

Baltasound

Most thinking people of the country do care whether Heathrow is adequate or not..If the lack of a third runway is holding the UK back, or giving an advantage to EU states..Then without question, most would back a third runway.

The Lib Dems aren't against the expansion of Heathrow for the sake of it, they are against it for the very good reason that (the airport) is in the wrong place

The Liberals are against a third runway, simply because they are a Green/Left of Centre party opposed to any development that does not comply with their narrow criteria.
Bottom line is there is not enough capacity at Heathrow, there are delays that are not acceptable and soon business will head Eastwards.

We have two options..A third runway at Heathrow, or a completely new London airport.

A third runway would be avaiable much sooner, and would be far cheaper.

Some may not like this..IMO sooner rather than later, a third runway at Heathrow is going to happen.

[LGS6753]

How about 4 runways built over the M25, and existing terminals retained?

This suggestion is from a serious political think-tank:

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima...%20quieter.pdf