Heathrow-2
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxing All Over The World
Normally, this Govt does not like the courts but they must be delighted that the courts have solved this voting problem for them!
Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP
@grantshapps
·
Airport expansion is core to boosting global connectivity. We also take seriously our commitment to the environment. This Govt won't appeal today's judgement given our manifesto makes clear any #Heathrow expansion will be industry led.
----------------------------------------------------
Without Government help - they are NOT going to appeal - sounds like a dead duck TBH....................
@grantshapps
·
----------------------------------------------------
Without Government help - they are NOT going to appeal - sounds like a dead duck TBH....................
Can't seem them getting anywhere with that, given the Govt have stated they won't be appealing, which isn't surprising given Bozo Boris was against it anyway.
I think 3rd runway is now dead and buried in reality.
As mentioned above, taxiway work to allow northern runway ops, plus south tunnel, and T2A expansion to eventually allow T3 demo by early 2030's will be where their money will now be going.
I think 3rd runway is now dead and buried in reality.
As mentioned above, taxiway work to allow northern runway ops, plus south tunnel, and T2A expansion to eventually allow T3 demo by early 2030's will be where their money will now be going.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Solihull
Age: 38
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I assume Heathrow will now go ahead with their granted planning permission to amend the taxiways etc to allow departures on the Northern runway. This will relieve residents in the west of the 18 hours of landings whilst on easterly ops.(Westerly ops have a change at 3pm). They ignored their own application to wait for R3 DCO before going ahead as it would cost £'s, significantly less than the PR budget £££'s
http://planning.hillingdon.gov.uk/Oc....pdf&module=pl
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They cant - the appeal that granted permission, dated 2 February 2017, had a condition that that had to commence no later than 3 years after the decision date. Bit of an own goal, perhaps!
http://planning.hillingdon.gov.uk/Oc....pdf&module=pl
http://planning.hillingdon.gov.uk/Oc....pdf&module=pl
Works needs to have started but the amount of work is not specified.
All they need to do is re submit the application to Hillingdon, and it will be accepted as it has passed to the appeal stage. The only reason why HAL will delay again is that the residents of Cranford will suffer a huge unacceptable noise burden, likewise in adjoining boroughs, which is what will happen should R3 go ahead. Easterly ops form 4.30am continously to 12 midnight on one runway.
Extant planning permissions can be revived, a common practice.
Extant planning permissions can be revived, a common practice.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 3rd runway is dead as a dodo.
HAL may go through the motions but there will be zero government appetite in terms of funding.
Latest estimates from IAG were £32bn. MPs who supported this were told by failing Grayling and the idiots in Whitehall it would not cost the taxpayer anything. That said I'm
not even sure he knew the figures himself , such was the level of incompetence.
Under these revised circumstances I cannot see any way the government would have any interest to fund to what has been a gravytrain of spend in the SE
LHR3 and Mr Hacker ....RIP.
HAL may go through the motions but there will be zero government appetite in terms of funding.
Latest estimates from IAG were £32bn. MPs who supported this were told by failing Grayling and the idiots in Whitehall it would not cost the taxpayer anything. That said I'm
not even sure he knew the figures himself , such was the level of incompetence.
Under these revised circumstances I cannot see any way the government would have any interest to fund to what has been a gravytrain of spend in the SE
LHR3 and Mr Hacker ....RIP.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 878
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
may run into the same issue re 2050 Emmissions
I presume BA are in the market for a few pre-owned 380's right now.............
Of course you could fix the problem by stopping people interlining at LHR - save 30% of the passenger movements.............
I presume BA are in the market for a few pre-owned 380's right now.............
Of course you could fix the problem by stopping people interlining at LHR - save 30% of the passenger movements.............
Thread Starter
In fact some forecasts predicted that, even with R3, there would be fewer domestic routes from LHR than there are today.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if they have dug a hole somewhere in connection to the above planning permission then they are fine.
How many here remember Tomorrow's World? I remember a feature on that programme one night which went along the lines of "Air traffic will grow hugely so there will be a need for bigger aircraft, flying more people on fewer flights operated on a Hub and Spoke basis". I wonder if somebody who was destined later in life to be in a position at Airbus to convince them that there was an absolute cast iron case for a larger aircraft and could we call it something the A380?
There was an "expert" on Radio 4 yesterday, pontificating on all the inns and outs of Heathrow expansion, alternative arrangements etc. I was only half listening so it was was only background noise to me but he got my attention when he mentioned a "secret runway, already available at Gatwick". Followed by "Manchester isn't yet quite big enough for 2 runway operations". That was when I realised I had been listening to an "expert" of the biblical or media kind. Maybe a politician?
I would predict though an application for an extra runway at Gatwick soon. The airport apparently owns a lot of the land to the south of the airport and, a couple of years ago, I was talking to chap there who claimed he had been told by a farmer there that he (farmer) had been given 3 years notice that Gatwick would be ending the lease.
The work HAL has undertaken is probably for R3. The Cranford work, requires a noise barrier slightly west of T5, but oops aircraft winding up to join 09L will blast debris into T5 ramps oops. Mr JHK stated they needed more taxiways as an excuse, why were they not in the planning in the first place.?
Thread Starter
Pretty clear that R3 is dead - as this thread isn't full of supporters raving about the judicial system then even they seem to have realised it is a dead duck - after 60 years of trying............
Isn’t it more the case that”aviation is dead” ? Maybe not today or tomorrow, but this is the logical conclusion of this ruling & the determination of the environmentalists. If you can’t have more aircraft at Heathrow, because of requirements to cut carbon etc., then you can’t have them anywhere else, either.
Thread Starter
Isn’t it more the case that ”aviation is dead” ? Maybe not today or tomorrow, but this is the logical conclusion of this ruling & the determination of the environmentalists. If you can’t have more aircraft at Heathrow, because of requirements to cut carbon etc., then you can’t have them anywhere else, either.
Hard to believe it was written nearly 50 years ago.
and boy was it a load of horlicks..................
"a 2 April 1972 article in the New York Times describing LTG as "an empty and misleading work ... best summarized ... as a rediscovery of the oldest maxim of computer science: Garbage In, Garbage Out". Passell found the study's simulations to be simplistic, while assigning little value to the role of technological progress in solving the problems of resource depletion, pollution, and food production. They charged that all LTG simulations ended in collapse, predicted the imminent end of irreplaceable resources. In 1973, a group of researchers at the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex, published Thinking about the Future; A Critique of The Limits to Growth, published in the United States as Models of Doom. The Sussex group examined the structure and assumptions of the MIT models. They concluded that the simulations were very sensitive to a few key assumptions and suggest that the MIT assumptions were unduly pessimistic. The Sussex scientists expressed their opinion that the MIT methodology, data, and projections were faulty and do not accurately reflect reality.
The report has been criticized by academics, economists and business people. Critics claimed that history proved the projections to be incorrect, which was specifically based on the popular belief that The Limits to Growth predicted resource depletion and associated economic collapse by the end of the 20th century=10.8333px. The Limits to Growth faced ridicule as early as the 1970s. Attacks were made on the methodology, the computer, the conclusions, the rhetoric and the people behind the project"
"a 2 April 1972 article in the New York Times describing LTG as "an empty and misleading work ... best summarized ... as a rediscovery of the oldest maxim of computer science: Garbage In, Garbage Out". Passell found the study's simulations to be simplistic, while assigning little value to the role of technological progress in solving the problems of resource depletion, pollution, and food production. They charged that all LTG simulations ended in collapse, predicted the imminent end of irreplaceable resources. In 1973, a group of researchers at the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex, published Thinking about the Future; A Critique of The Limits to Growth, published in the United States as Models of Doom. The Sussex group examined the structure and assumptions of the MIT models. They concluded that the simulations were very sensitive to a few key assumptions and suggest that the MIT assumptions were unduly pessimistic. The Sussex scientists expressed their opinion that the MIT methodology, data, and projections were faulty and do not accurately reflect reality.
The report has been criticized by academics, economists and business people. Critics claimed that history proved the projections to be incorrect, which was specifically based on the popular belief that The Limits to Growth predicted resource depletion and associated economic collapse by the end of the 20th century=10.8333px. The Limits to Growth faced ridicule as early as the 1970s. Attacks were made on the methodology, the computer, the conclusions, the rhetoric and the people behind the project"
