Heathrow-2
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trouble the government have is that they specified the need for one runway in the south east.
They have hitched their "one runway" waggon to LHR which their own figures now show to be the weaker case compared to LGW.If they press on and "decide" to approve LHR (is the weaker case) the government would be exposed to a Judicial Review which, if successful, would mean they have to start the process again from scratch.
They have hitched their "one runway" waggon to LHR which their own figures now show to be the weaker case compared to LGW.If they press on and "decide" to approve LHR (is the weaker case) the government would be exposed to a Judicial Review which, if successful, would mean they have to start the process again from scratch.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect they reason there is no way they can gat R3 through quickly because of the environmental issues so they are kicking the can down the road hoping it will go away - same as the idiotic (non-) decision on moving out of Westminster made yesterday
this really is a Govt drifitng without any course or anchor
this really is a Govt drifitng without any course or anchor
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The DfT's estimate about capacity will help to fuel calls for expansion at other airports in the South East, especially at Gatwick which has restated its pledge to build a second runway.
"It is clear that demand for further airport capacity in the South East continues to grow," a spokesperson for Gatwick said. "That's why we have today reiterated our pledge to government to build a second runway at Gatwick regardless of what happens at Heathrow."
"It is clear that demand for further airport capacity in the South East continues to grow," a spokesperson for Gatwick said. "That's why we have today reiterated our pledge to government to build a second runway at Gatwick regardless of what happens at Heathrow."
I have no conception of how having lost out every single time in every review how LGW suddenly wins against LHR. The only thing it has that is compelling is the environment case surely. Business isn't even interested in Gatters, never has been.
Paxing All Over The World
There is a reason that LHR has always been in the frame for expansion. Against all alternatives (new places / expansion) the needle always swings back to LHR. There is a reason for that ... 
Thread Starter
Ah, right. It appears to have come from yesterday's BBC report, rather than the Times article:
Heathrow third runway public consultation reopened
It's b*ll*cks, of course.
While Gatwick may maintain publicly that their R2 plans would go ahead even if Heathrow is also given clearance for R3, nobody seriously believes that, do they?
Heathrow third runway public consultation reopened
It's b*ll*cks, of course.
While Gatwick may maintain publicly that their R2 plans would go ahead even if Heathrow is also given clearance for R3, nobody seriously believes that, do they?
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wa quoting Heathrow Harry.
I have no conception of how having lost out every single time in every review how LGW suddenly wins against LHR. The only thing it has that is compelling is the environment case surely. Business isn't even interested in Gatters, never has been.
I have no conception of how having lost out every single time in every review how LGW suddenly wins against LHR. The only thing it has that is compelling is the environment case surely. Business isn't even interested in Gatters, never has been.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/25/heathrow-doubts-new-analysis-shows-gatwick-expansion-better/
"And while it was originally forecast that Heathrow would bring greater economic benefits, new official analysis now states that Gatwick would deliver greater financial reward.
The earlier report, put out for public consultation earlier this year, claimed that Heathrow offered total benefits of between £59.2billion and £61.1billion over a 60-year period, outweighing the £52.4 to £53.7billion that could be gained from Gatwick.
But the latest analysis has flipped this on its head, with Britain set to gain up to £75.3billion from Gatwick, compared to just £74.2billion from the third runway option at Heathrow."
Germany f--ks up an airport project and delays it by about 8 years . we take 25 years to not build a runway.
It has to go to LHR because its the only hub we have and ever will have.
LGW is too far away and very hard to get to, LHR might be not be ideal but at least there are lots of diverse options for reaching it.
Maybe the government are doing it to divert attention from Brexit where they are even more useless where they have done the most hopeless job imaginable whatever your point of view on the issue
It has to go to LHR because its the only hub we have and ever will have.
LGW is too far away and very hard to get to, LHR might be not be ideal but at least there are lots of diverse options for reaching it.
Maybe the government are doing it to divert attention from Brexit where they are even more useless where they have done the most hopeless job imaginable whatever your point of view on the issue
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nobody seriously believes that, do they?
Paxing All Over The World
As I have said before: If Brexit goes ahead, the holiday traffic will diminsh from LGW and Heathrow - whilst never getting back to a sensible level of ops - will find less pressure. I sit to be corrected!
Thread Starter
Brexit could mean Yorkshire sees huge increase in number of flights to Heathrow
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a huge overstatement by any means, if anything one extra flight a day but a 'huge increase' is ridiculous, the same could be said said about most of the domestic destinations currently served from LHR with some of these including EDI recently having cutbacks to their schedules.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Promises that if Heathrow is expanded, more regional destinations will be served are meaningless - neither the airport nor the Government can tell airlines where they should or shouldn't operate. If they can make more profit flying to Lima than Liverpool, that's what they'll do.
The Airports Commission acknowledged this, suggesting that even with expansion the number of UK routes from LHR will remain static or even decline in future.
The Airports Commission acknowledged this, suggesting that even with expansion the number of UK routes from LHR will remain static or even decline in future.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Promises that if Heathrow is expanded, more regional destinations will be served are meaningless - neither the airport nor the Government can tell airlines where they should or shouldn't operate. If they can make more profit flying to Lima than Liverpool, that's what they'll do.
The Airports Commission acknowledged this, suggesting that even with expansion the number of UK routes from LHR will remain static or even decline in future.
The Airports Commission acknowledged this, suggesting that even with expansion the number of UK routes from LHR will remain static or even decline in future.
With reference to Flybe are they making any money?
I would have thought we would have had increased frequency by now and lots of PR about how successful the flights to Scotland are but the silence is deafening!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"LGW is too far away and very hard to get to,"
It has a Motorway and rail connection - in fact a better rail connection than LHR as you can travel right across London to get there NOW - not in a couple of years with crossrail
Plus places like Guidlford & Reading are also connected directly to LGW but not LHR
It has a Motorway and rail connection - in fact a better rail connection than LHR as you can travel right across London to get there NOW - not in a couple of years with crossrail
Plus places like Guidlford & Reading are also connected directly to LGW but not LHR
Yorkshire Post quote
"Plans to construct a third runway were approved in October last year."
So provide slots to regional airports, = oh not able to make a profit, lets see we can sell the slot ££££ or $$$$$
"Plans to construct a third runway were approved in October last year."
So provide slots to regional airports, = oh not able to make a profit, lets see we can sell the slot ££££ or $$$$$
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Promises that if Heathrow is expanded, more regional destinations will be served are meaningless - neither the airport nor the Government can tell airlines where they should or shouldn't operate. If they can make more profit flying to Lima than Liverpool, that's what they'll do.
The Airports Commission acknowledged this, suggesting that even with expansion the number of UK routes from LHR will remain static or even decline in future.
The Airports Commission acknowledged this, suggesting that even with expansion the number of UK routes from LHR will remain static or even decline in future.
i.e. JER, GCI, IOM, LPL, LBA and maybe even MME?
For the benefit of the third runway, HAL would likely not see that as a dealbreaker.
Not beyond the wit of man to work this out surely?
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only argument LHR is winning is the connectivity one. The economic, environmental, and regional connectivity arguments have been lost.