Are you by any chance referring to this:

If so, you misunderstand.

You might want to take some time out and study what's meant by "alternation".

It doesn't mean leaving a runway idle for half the time.

Apologies, I understand...

Once the dust has settled, this four runway proposal to the immediate west of Heathrow over the M25 makes most sense, still utilising much of LHR infrastructure. Right location, less noise, right capacity.


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

We have to have one major hub, not more runway capacity shared around all the rest of the London airports or anything else in the SE UK. And that one major hub has to have four runways to work as a hub.

My prediction however is that no decisions will be reached for two more terms - 10 years by which time it's far too late with a minimum 15 year gestation period to actually build and then commission.

I still think you can build another runway north of LHR and another one south of the airport, that will be cheaper than the PE idea (which will not solve the noise issues that will come up)

In fact LHR and the local area can fit a total of 6 runways (far enough to be able to be used simultaneously) without knocking down too many houses

Why do you think that Heathrow needs six runways ?

They tried that once, but gave it up as a bad idea:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rt%2C_1955.jpg

A decision was reached. The decision was to do nothing. Sometimes that is a perfectly respectable option. Whenever a transport proposal is being evaluated, at the very least, alternatives need to be weighed not just against each other, but against the status quo.

I think this is why so many people are unconvinced about HS2. The govt have put forward a case based on a very low BCR (benefit cost ratio). Then supporters turn round and say ignore BCR, that is just a measure to compare projects, the wider benefits go well beyond this.

In pure economic terms, it doesn't make sense to charge full steam ahead with an unproven rail project, and then to block an airport project which is already costed and funded.

However, political factors will always come into play. Post 15, we'll have run out of grass to kick the can into any more. So either they do something, or they make a decision to NEVER do anything. I know I'm starting to sound like a politician now, but choosing not doing something and avoiding making a decision to do something are quite different.

@fairflyer

I've been championing the Policy Exchange one since it came out, as it seems the best option of all those considered.

However, the OP was asking what we think will actually happen, not what we think SHOULD happen, and in answer to that question I think we will get a recommendation for a shortened R3 at LHR north of the current one, over what is currently Sipson.

Why? Because it is a classic Government fudge, which only partly solves the problem!

Call me a cynic, but if the commission recommends that in their 2013 interim report (which is what we're being asked to predict), what's left for them to do for the remaining two years of their tenure ?

Expenses?
Hire consultants to do more research?
Make visits to many foreign fields for research?

I know, I'm too cynical for my socks. :hmm:

Quote: “Davies will push for the logical answer the industry wants, namely LHR R3. His committee will try and push the other options, including do nothing, STN or LGW R2, or even BHX as a hub.

Boris Island will remain a non-starter.”

The trouble with recommending anywhere apart from LHR is that the airlines and pax won’t accept it, they‘ll use the competition instead: AMS, CDG, FRA.
　
　
Quote: “Do any of us really trust the commission to come to the correct decision?”

Depends what we/you/they think is the correct decision.

　
Quote: “Have you never watched Yes, Minister ?

The commission was formed expressly for that purpose - to come to the "correct" decision.

Of course that includes deciding not to decide …”

Of course, remember it well. Whenever good old Jim Hacker was disinclined to take the “long grass” option, Sir Humphrey would come out with something like: “a very brave decision, minister”. Excellent stuff!


Quote: “I still think you can build another runway north of LHR and another one south of the airport, that will be cheaper than the PE idea (which will not solve the noise issues that will come up)”

South of LHR is problematic, that strays into the “Free Enterprise Group’s” idea of demolishing Bedfont and Stanwell. Open land across the M25 is the answer.

Quote: “In fact LHR and the local area can fit a total of 6 runways (far enough to be able to be used simultaneously) without knocking down too many houses .”

Would love to see it, please explain how and where. You mentioned the word “simultaneously”, that implies all six rwys would be parallel.


Quote: “However, the OP was asking what we think will actually happen, not what we think SHOULD happen, and in answer to that question I think we will get a recommendation for a shortened R3 at LHR north of the current one, over what is currently Sipson.

Why? Because it is a classic Government fudge, which only partly solves the problem!”

Agreed, because otherwise the business goes abroad to the competition.

Well there is only one correct decision and that is Rwy3/4 at LHR. The plan put forward for LHR by the Policy Exchange is growing on me to be honest; very much workable.

Quote: "Well there is only one correct decision and that is Rwy3/4 at LHR. The plan put forward for LHR by the Policy Exchange is growing on me to be honest; very much workable."

Perhaps, at least it's not lunatic nonsense like some of the schemes. Have to admit that much sensible and practical thought has been put into this. Do have an issue in particular with losing the existing two good long rwys!

However, it is very long term (draining reservoirs, building 4 rwys, new terminals, new fire stations, new public transport routes and interchanges, etc.), and consequently, very expensive.

Two questions arise:

1. Could BAA afford it? Would the extra expense give a as much of a return return as keeping the existing rwys and adding two more?

2. What is to be done in the interim? A third rwy at Sipson?

PS it would be one hell of a long taxy (3 mi.?) from the new LHR-1/2 (which stays under these proposals) to the far end of one of the four new rwys on an easterly takeoff! Could rival AMS!

Seems like everyone completely missed the point of this thread. :confused: Just reads like the Heathrow thread, the new Thames airport thread etc etc...

...well I'd say it was more workable than some of the other delusional schemes (Northolt, BoJo's Fantasy Island) that have been put forward. Every plan has its drawbacks and its barriers. We perhaps need to use a bit more imagination.

And its not going to be cheap is it! However, a 4 Runway Heathrow could probably cost £10-15bn? Fantasy Island could cost £100bn if you include all the ancillary services.

PS: Actually looking at the chart on the PE Report, the taxiway could be up to 5 miles from the new Terminal 2C!

Maybe we could put the aircraft on some of those travellator things that they have in the terminals, when you need to get to gate 846...!

I'm afraid you're right, it has simply degenerated into another debate about the pros and cons of the various options, without adding anything to what's been said in the other threads on the subject.

I'm out of here.

OK, so my predictions are:-

That the report will be about how to provide capacity / infrastructure to the overbloated Southest.

The recommendations will set out to solve today's problems, rather than building for the future.

A few (fairly tenuous) crumbs will be thrown to "the north" to keep us quiet.

Whatever is proposed will be either a) rejected by the govt. worried about the effect on marginal seats or b) bogged down in never ending public enquiries.

When LHR last had 6 runnways, they could not be all used at the same time, which is what I am suggesting, hence it made no diffrence capacity wise when they lost 4 of them (to expand the terminals and to deal with bigger planes)

Sorry, but the idea of 6 runways being used at the same time is no less ludicrous if they are parallel. :ugh:

Quote: "OK, so my predictions are:-

That the report will be about how to provide capacity / infrastructure to the overbloated Southest.

The recommendations will set out to solve today's problems, rather than building for the future.

A few (fairly tenuous) crumbs will be thrown to "the north" to keep us quiet.

Whatever is proposed will be either a) rejected by the govt. worried about the effect on marginal seats or b) bogged down in never ending public enquiries."

"The north", and indeed the rest of the UK, does not need any "crumbs". There are many excellent airports throughout the country with plenty of capacity, and generally, traffic rights are relatively easy to come by (subject to reciprocal arrangements of course).

Airlines need to be convinced that they can make money on routes to/from other UK airports. That's not for the Commission or the Government to determine.

The problem is one of UK hub capacity, and that means Heathrow, it's also nothing to do with "the overbloated Southest", which also has excellent airports with plenty of capacity.

There are also not that many marginal seats around Heathrow, only Brentford and Isleworth in Middlesex (Con-Lab) and Richmond Park in Surrey (Con-Lib) come to mind off the top of my head, and people tend not to vote on single issues such as airport expansion.



Quote: "When LHR last had 6 runnways, they could not be all used at the same time, which is what I am suggesting, hence it made no diffrence capacity wise when they lost 4 of them (to expand the terminals and to deal with bigger planes)"

But do you know why the rwys were organised this way? Military aircraft of the 1940s could not cope with crosswind takeoffs and landings as well as modern civil aircraft. Simultaneous use was not an issue then, today it is, hence the need for parallel rwys.