LHR given permission to build 3rd runway?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gatwick is remote from the M4 corridor that LHR supports enormously in terms of attracting businesses to be based in the SE. Much of LGW's catchment area by comparison is aquatic marine life due its proximity to the coast.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In amongst all this, there was one golden nugget from BBC R4 yesterday. Talking about the plan to build a tunnel for the runway to go through...
Actually, building the whole thing indoors sounds sensible. Take away many of the issues with weather etc.
Actually, building the whole thing indoors sounds sensible. Take away many of the issues with weather etc.
Some aircraft enthusiasts must have become deaf through repeated exposure to afterburners.
My daughter lives in Barnes, roughly beneath the approach to 27L. When it's in use for landing, it's not possible to have a normal conversation outside. The noise itself, I would say, is not so bad as to make gardening alone unpleasant. But then I am an aircraft enthusiast.
My daughter lives in Barnes, roughly beneath the approach to 27L. When it's in use for landing, it's not possible to have a normal conversation outside. The noise itself, I would say, is not so bad as to make gardening alone unpleasant. But then I am an aircraft enthusiast.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My daughter lives in Barnes, roughly beneath the approach to 27L. When it's in use for landing, it's not possible to have a normal conversation outside.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the research you quote is on how much concentration of only N2O there is, not all NxOx compounds. Also it is per kg fuel (fuel flow at idle is much lower). Plus they used DC-8 era engines...
Last edited by procede; 27th Oct 2016 at 09:37.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a surprise Navpi.
I did hear the £61bn quoted on the BBC but I assumed that was over a shorter time frame.
Bit of an embarrassment if it is 60 years and the Times have got it right.
I did hear the £61bn quoted on the BBC but I assumed that was over a shorter time frame.
Bit of an embarrassment if it is 60 years and the Times have got it right.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How mad can this all get? Decide on something then rip up the plan for another even barmier one while suddenly disputing costs by tens of billions. Thats £10million worth of Davies Commission dumped. Is it really not possible to build it alongside 09/27 and use that spare land east of the M4 extension into the airport? Think of the savings... no need to disturb M25 and BA HQ and Incinerator Plant etc etc. An M4 Extension tunnel under a runway would cost peanuts in comparison. As for a bridge over M25, give me strength, they'll be proposing tying two runways together next. Oh they have....
Davies report said M25 would have to be lowered 9 feet in order to pass under runway.
Sounds a far simpler cut and cover task than a monumental sized "bridge"to accomodate
runway, two taxiways, service roads, hard shoulders, flower beds, you name it...
Davies report said M25 would have to be lowered 9 feet in order to pass under runway.
Sounds a far simpler cut and cover task than a monumental sized "bridge"to accomodate
runway, two taxiways, service roads, hard shoulders, flower beds, you name it...
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a strong afbocate of Heathrow BUT I'm beginning to wonder what on earth the airport commission were doing !
The growth figures have been slashed
The potential employment figures likewise
And as for the runway construction.
The growth figures have been slashed
The potential employment figures likewise
And as for the runway construction.
Last edited by Navpi; 28th Oct 2016 at 02:37.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but if realistic figures supporting a near equivalent benefit from an expanded Gatwick had credibility given that not one airline I know has publically called for LGW to be expanded over a constrained LHR, then LGW would have won! Genuinely, if LGW had an equivalent benefit, it would not have been passed over twice on favour of LHR in the last ten years by a Labour then a Tory govt.
We all love a good story but come off it.....
We all love a good story but come off it.....
I have to confess I wasn't the first to think of the idea. 
Paxing All Over The World
Planemike
It's a strange kind of vainty that has had politicians running away from it for 35 years, continually kicking the can to someone else - even when big business has been begging for it for years. HS2? That is vanity, I agree. Also the O2 (as it now is) but that's another story.
Looks more like another "vanity project" dreamt up to massage politicians egos. See also HS2............
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now the Heathrow decision has been made can we now not just move on?
The AC Report & the issue more generally have been analysed & debated ad-nauseam. The vocal minority have a chance to launch their legal challenges and the community will have an opportunity to voice their concerns during the DfT's public consultation ahead of the NPS.
Or perhaps by continually rehashing the whys & wherefores some believe it'll change the outcome? A similar mindset to those seeking to reverse Brexit perhaps?
The AC did consider all of the UK and announced in its interim report that it found a case for expansion in the South East - not elsewhere.
The difference in the value of economic benefits is down to the DfT & AC using different indicators (eg GDP or not).
TfL & Highways Agency have vested interests in getting someone else to pay for improvements to their infrastructure they should have already made.
There's far more public transport opportunities to Heathrow than Gatwick.
Of course, that's just my opinion based on published information.
The AC Report & the issue more generally have been analysed & debated ad-nauseam. The vocal minority have a chance to launch their legal challenges and the community will have an opportunity to voice their concerns during the DfT's public consultation ahead of the NPS.
Or perhaps by continually rehashing the whys & wherefores some believe it'll change the outcome? A similar mindset to those seeking to reverse Brexit perhaps?
The AC did consider all of the UK and announced in its interim report that it found a case for expansion in the South East - not elsewhere.
The difference in the value of economic benefits is down to the DfT & AC using different indicators (eg GDP or not).
TfL & Highways Agency have vested interests in getting someone else to pay for improvements to their infrastructure they should have already made.
There's far more public transport opportunities to Heathrow than Gatwick.
Of course, that's just my opinion based on published information.
Agreed. If the government really wanted a "vanity project" they'd be building Boris Island.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Advisers warned Heathrow figures were questionable | News | The Times & The Sunday Times
I think it's fair to say a few journo's are beginning to smell a rat!
I think it's fair to say a few journo's are beginning to smell a rat!
From this week's DfT report's Executive Summary:
"The revised analysis set out in this report suggests that, as was the case for the Airports Commission's analysis, the net present values (NPVs) of all three schemes, generated by subtracting the monetised costs from the monetised benefits, are close. The NPVs of the two Heathrow schemes are subject to more uncertainty than the LGW Second Runway scheme. The LHR Northwest Runway delivers the highest NPV at the upper end of the central range, and the LGW Second Runway delivers the highest NPV at the lower end. This is due to the uncertainty surrounding scheme costs and surface access requirements as a result of airport expansion, which are still to be determined. The ranking of the schemes by NPV is dependent on a number of assumptions necessitated by these uncertainties."
Further Review and Sensitivities Report - Airport Capacity in the South East
"The revised analysis set out in this report suggests that, as was the case for the Airports Commission's analysis, the net present values (NPVs) of all three schemes, generated by subtracting the monetised costs from the monetised benefits, are close. The NPVs of the two Heathrow schemes are subject to more uncertainty than the LGW Second Runway scheme. The LHR Northwest Runway delivers the highest NPV at the upper end of the central range, and the LGW Second Runway delivers the highest NPV at the lower end. This is due to the uncertainty surrounding scheme costs and surface access requirements as a result of airport expansion, which are still to be determined. The ranking of the schemes by NPV is dependent on a number of assumptions necessitated by these uncertainties."
Further Review and Sensitivities Report - Airport Capacity in the South East
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that decison has been made let's move on ?
Er NO, let's not !
Let's have a root and branch evaluation of where the figures came from and identify who is paying for what and when and finalise exactly where the runway is supposed to be going.
Up , down, under or over OR On a gradual slop to Maidenhead !!!
Let's reevaluate the figures that I for one believed and I assume the PM did as well !
Lets reevaluate the black hole of £5-12bn for road / rail infastructure, as Grayling suggested there is zero from the public purse , so possibly a pertinent question "whose paying" as I cannot for the life of me see the shareholders coughing up.
That in my mind puts the project in jeapordy before the ink is even dry on Tuesdays statement!
Let reevaluate those domestic routes that we need, but hang on where does the PM go, wait for it
."Plymouth Roborough"
an airport that is shut due zero demand but may reopen when that 1st pig flies. It might then get a Heathrow link twice a day in 15 years, if it's lucky, and some idiot has money to burn.
Somebody needs to be accountable for this shambles as a number of business writers seem to be sharpening their laptops ......
AND this is before m'learned gentlemen for the prosecution get involved!
Er NO, let's not !
Let's have a root and branch evaluation of where the figures came from and identify who is paying for what and when and finalise exactly where the runway is supposed to be going.
Up , down, under or over OR On a gradual slop to Maidenhead !!!
Let's reevaluate the figures that I for one believed and I assume the PM did as well !
Lets reevaluate the black hole of £5-12bn for road / rail infastructure, as Grayling suggested there is zero from the public purse , so possibly a pertinent question "whose paying" as I cannot for the life of me see the shareholders coughing up.
That in my mind puts the project in jeapordy before the ink is even dry on Tuesdays statement!
Let reevaluate those domestic routes that we need, but hang on where does the PM go, wait for it
."Plymouth Roborough"
an airport that is shut due zero demand but may reopen when that 1st pig flies. It might then get a Heathrow link twice a day in 15 years, if it's lucky, and some idiot has money to burn.
Somebody needs to be accountable for this shambles as a number of business writers seem to be sharpening their laptops ......
AND this is before m'learned gentlemen for the prosecution get involved!
Last edited by Navpi; 28th Oct 2016 at 13:02.