Heathrow-3
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Solihull
Age: 37
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Supreme Court has decided that the Airports National Policy Statement is not unlawful. In practical terms this means Heathrow can now re-commence work on their Development Consent Order in reliance on the ANPS policy. The reality may be somewhat slower given the economic situation.
Available to watch the judgment here;
Watch live - the Supreme Court
Available to watch the judgment here;
Watch live - the Supreme Court
Last edited by LessThanSte; 16th Dec 2020 at 11:03.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Manchester
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although there is a discussion on the British Airways page with regard slot retention, I though it more relevant to Heathrow overall. There is an article in Simple Flying about the 80-20 rule the main points being;-The Worldwide Airport Slot Board would like to EU to accede to the following;
- Airlines that return a full series of slots by early February to be permitted to retain the right to operate them in northern 2022 summer;
- A lower operating threshold for retaining slots the following season. In normal industry conditions, the rule is 80-20. The Worldwide Airport Slot Board wants to amend this to 50-50 over the northern 20201 summer; and
- A clear definition for acceptable non-use of a slot. For example, force majeure as a result of short-term border closures or quarantine measures imposed by governments.
The full article can be found at EU Seeks To Reintroduce Airport Slot Rules - Simple Flying
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R3
Maybe LHR can run a lottery on the first date westerly landing, first westerly departure, first easterly landing, first easterly departure in correct order. Maybe help to pay for the runway 😂
Paxing All Over The World
Still, at least LHR mgmt don't have to waste any more time planning for R3. As previously mentioned, it will never be built. Never was going to be built, for different reasons.
They've literally just won at The Supreme Court.
The legislation has passed all Parliamentary hurdles and gone all the way to the highest court in the land. The planning process now begins in earnest. In all honestly, in 18 months time, COVID should be a memory we're all travelling again to forget.
Don't write it off just yet.
The legislation has passed all Parliamentary hurdles and gone all the way to the highest court in the land. The planning process now begins in earnest. In all honestly, in 18 months time, COVID should be a memory we're all travelling again to forget.
Don't write it off just yet.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 63
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Major blow to Heathrow and indeed Gatwick Luton and Stansted, all non essential travel is now banned into and out of the South East from midnight, as indeed is travel to these airports from outside. It will be interesting to see how this will be enforced and indeed how airlines react. This week end has been one of the busiest for a while but many of the routes don't neeceesarily appear to be business related.
Last edited by Navpi; 19th Dec 2020 at 17:04.
Paxing All Over The World
For R3: Those opposing it have won several hurdles, they won't stop now. I think we will find that 2021 is going to be so bad in the airline world that this will get pushed further down the road. That will be the first reaction, postponing due to money shortage.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LV
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this will go all guns blazing once things settle down... I expect it to be firmed and up and running within next 10 years. Id be interested to know of the complainers how many had flown, and how many had flown specifically and enjoyed the benefits from LHR?
Paxing All Over The World
Let me repeat:
- I believe in R3
- I think it should have been built 20 years ago
- I think there may well be a need for it in the future
- I doubt it will ever be built
- I shall be happy to be proved wrong.
CabinCrewe
Even allowing for the fact that some of the preliminary work has already been done, 10 years is a very ambitious timescale. The T5 planning and construction process, overall, took the best part of 20 years, and that was without the requirement for wholesale airspace design changes.
Even allowing for the fact that some of the preliminary work has already been done, 10 years is a very ambitious timescale. The T5 planning and construction process, overall, took the best part of 20 years, and that was without the requirement for wholesale airspace design changes.
I've seen plenty of plan iterations since the proposal was first mooted, but none has been described as definitive.
AFAIK, it hasn't even been decided how R3 will get over the M25 - motorway in a tunnel?, runway on a ramp/bridge?, you name it ...
Ditto whether there's to be a T6 or just some additional T5 satellites.
AFAIK, it hasn't even been decided how R3 will get over the M25 - motorway in a tunnel?, runway on a ramp/bridge?, you name it ...
Ditto whether there's to be a T6 or just some additional T5 satellites.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CabinCrewe
So I must be a complainer. I have lived close to Heathrow since 1973, no T4,T5, no tube access, and cross runway still in use. Present when PI crashed. Worked there for 6 years. The expansion since 73 has been suitable/acceptable.
The expansion for R3 is not now required. This includes the sea change in business methods of communications. Tourist pax numbers will be less, they are already accommodated by BA and the opposition. The land grab, movement of local roads is extraordinary. Rail links, tube and rail and roads are not being funded by Heathrow. The impact of noise on new communities is ignored.
Have I used Heathrow? Yes for business use within the UK, Ireland, and worldwide, both with BA and many different carriers when cost is relevant, since 1973. Also as a tourist pax, but used all other SE airports.
Heathrow is only a small hub for the UK. All major cities in UK have access to all points east and south, via ME points. Traditionally pax would transit through LHR, now flights from USA/Canada fly over the UK on route ME/Asia/China. Twins have extra range and economics.
There is no need now for R3.
So I must be a complainer. I have lived close to Heathrow since 1973, no T4,T5, no tube access, and cross runway still in use. Present when PI crashed. Worked there for 6 years. The expansion since 73 has been suitable/acceptable.
The expansion for R3 is not now required. This includes the sea change in business methods of communications. Tourist pax numbers will be less, they are already accommodated by BA and the opposition. The land grab, movement of local roads is extraordinary. Rail links, tube and rail and roads are not being funded by Heathrow. The impact of noise on new communities is ignored.
Have I used Heathrow? Yes for business use within the UK, Ireland, and worldwide, both with BA and many different carriers when cost is relevant, since 1973. Also as a tourist pax, but used all other SE airports.
Heathrow is only a small hub for the UK. All major cities in UK have access to all points east and south, via ME points. Traditionally pax would transit through LHR, now flights from USA/Canada fly over the UK on route ME/Asia/China. Twins have extra range and economics.
There is no need now for R3.
The opportunity for job creation and employment is, I believe huge. There is going to be a green cost which modern engine technology and carbon offsets will be required to be brought to bear, but the notion that there's no need is an odd one. Even the Greens say the need is there but we should not put economic growth before environmental concerns. Frankly if we went to be able to pay our way in the world and get out of the hole we're in then it's essential to press on and provide the infrastructure for economic growth, within an agreed environmental framework. Just be honest and say you just don't want aeroplanes flying over the house you wanted to spend a quiet retirement in. That's a fair and honest arguement, with respect, claiming there's no need, is not backed up by anyone serious who has looked at this. Even David Cameron, the man who cancelled this last time, recognised this in the end. His review was a way of doing the right thing late and keeping his hands semi clean.
We need to stop pretending LHR is like any other private business, it's a key part of UK PLC that arguably should not have been sold to the private sector, the costs of the infrastructure redevelopment should not be borne soley by HAL, much would be required anyway. The public / private split of the funding will be a battle but it's a public / private partnership so that's wholey reasonable and outwith the newspapers has been recognised as such.
If this is correct, MAN should be closed and houses built. Should we close MAN? Er...no.
