Is there even the prospect for a safety case for the unique solution of making the Northern runway double-length?

How about Heathrow goes 24 hours...

Limits movements over night to say 20 total movements in/out per hour..min seating of 200. with ultra quiet aircraft...Spends a few million on noise suppression ie Double glazing..
so that’s 6 hours roughly at 120 movements..

Uses dual runway ops during day...solved..everyone( nearly) happy and growth achieved for minimal cash outlay..easy eh!!

With those comments you make it sound so straight forward but I'm afraid it won't happen.

I think that's what is termed a "lose-lose" scenario - you get at best a 10% increase in capacity instead of the 50% that the R3 advocates are seeking, while simultaneously interrupting the sleep of several million Londoners.

But apart from that, it's perfect. :O

Highwide this lets make Heathrow 24 hour mantra and that would be a simple solution is an utter red herring.

These days no one would want or choose to depart to anywhere at 3.30 am period it just ain’t happening !
It’s no longer 1973 and flying on some no mark charter to Palma or Rimini . Passenger aspirations have radically changed

Indeed few want or choose to depart at 06.30 right now!

However you do realise contrary to popular Anet and Dryed fruit myth Heathrow is already 24 hour although heavily slot constrained between 11.00 and 06.00 which as a local resident is beneficial.

There are actually around 18 slots available mostly used and available before 6am each night used by early long haul arrivals.

I will tell you the Boston/Hong Kong depending on season is the first and what ever operates it I certainly here it and it ain’t quiet at 04.40 !

Given the UK geography, long haul and inter European travel preferences frankly don’t lead to demands for departures after 11.00 or arrivals much before the current 04.40 time frame

UK isn’t the Middle East where the time frame for those transits do mean stupid o’clock operations.

We are on the edge of the Eastern Atlantic Heathrow is the largest US landing point in Europe.
Major American airports are also night restricted and those late evening departures Boston excepted always will arrive around 6 am and after.
From Asia it’s much the same for overnight flight although many from this area arrive in Europe late afternoon.

The only potential beneficiaries of any slots in the current heavily restricted time frame could be a few freighters, however boxes couldn’t care less where they enter in country - Stansted provides more than sufficient capacity for those today .

If you really want the mob marching up your drive with pitchforks and blazing brands just suggest 24 hr operation

Even the pro expansion Commons Transport Committee want to reduce the number of night flights and extend the curfew.....

The "Pro Expansion" Transport Committee appear to have finally seen the light.

Just issued.


Credit; The Times.


Heathrow’s third runway should be blocked unless the government introduces tough new restrictions on costs, pollution, aircraft noise and night flights, according to MPs.

The transport select committee said that safeguards designed to protect local residents and airport passengers had to be strengthened before the plans are approved.

The cross-party group ultimately supported the proposed northwest runway, concluding in a report that it was the best option for airport expansion in the southeast. However, it said that the government’s national policy statement (NPS) — the planning consent needed to pave the way for the two-mile runway — should only be passed by MPs if crucial new conditions were imposed.

Journalist criticises airport for treatment of disabled passengers - BBC News

Perhaps they need to sort the basics out

And employ some rather less arrogant spokespersons:

"We apologise unreservedly IF the service Mr Gardner received today fell short of the experience we aim to provide to our passengers."

If ????

The person running the twitter account might get a bollocking here, they may even be agency. Mr Gardner was flying Ethiopian Airlines who are handled by a third party (Menzies?). It is the handlers responsibility to get the wheelchair out of the bulk hold and up to the air-bridge in good time.
In fairness, neither of these companies are HAL. It's classic social media clusterflip, with everyone piling in. HAL's twitter is not a "spokesperson" in the traditional media sense, they tend to be young and often agency side, into managing damage to the brand. The mistake appears to be in apologising at all, they appear to have (almost) admitted being at fault for something they have no part in.

From vague memories of working for BAA I am sure that HAL require certain standards of their customers.

TBF HAL never say when advertising LHR

" An airport owned by HAL but you'll actually be in the hands of all sorts of third party companies most of whom we hardly know about...."

Not surprising they get it in the neck when someone else screws up

But still it would be appealing to do something nasty to these spokespeople and then apologise IF they didn't enjoy it.

Skipness: It may still be HAL's responsibility. In an interview on Radio 4 yesterday morning, Gardner said the wheelchair was unloaded on time and was delivered to the air bridge. For some, unknown, reason it was then removed from there and sent to the terminal.

Unsure of source of source for this.
@Airportwatch

The Government’s Aviation Strategy will now not be presented to Parliament until summer 2019 despite the initial consultation in July 2017 promising the full strategy to be presented to Parliament “before the end of 2018”. The reason for the delay is unclear but campaigners say the strategy could in fact be put in jeopardy because of its reliance on Heathrow expansion – a project which has major parliamentary and legal hurdles to overcome. Rob Barnstone, Coordinator of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, said: “This strategy is written on the basis that Heathrow expansion is a done deal. It is in fact very uncertain with parliamentary and legal hurdles which it will struggle to overcome. The Government seems hell-bent on expanding Heathrow, despite evidence that alternative options for growth in the sector would bring a greater benefit to regions across the UK and not just in the south east, as usual.” It has always been profoundly unsatisfactory, and illogical, for a key part of the UK aviation sector – Heathrow airport – being decided upon BEFORE the UK aviation policy for the whole sector. Rationally, it would be the other way round – aviation policy first, and then decide on whether Heathrow should expand.

.

Yet another delay ?

Unsure of source of source for this.
@Airportwatch are quoting but not seenecessarily any Government chit chat.

The Government’s Aviation Strategy will now not be presented to Parliament until summer 2019 despite the initial consultation in July 2017 promising the full strategy to be presented to Parliament “before the end of 2018”. The reason for the delay is unclear but campaigners say the strategy could in fact be put in jeopardy because of its reliance on Heathrow expansion – a project which has major parliamentary and legal hurdles to overcome. Rob Barnstone, Coordinator of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, said: “This strategy is written on the basis that Heathrow expansion is a done deal. It is in fact very uncertain with parliamentary and legal hurdles which it will struggle to overcome. The Government seems hell-bent on expanding Heathrow, despite evidence that alternative options for growth in the sector would bring a greater benefit to regions across the UK and not just in the south east, as usual.” It has always been profoundly unsatisfactory, and illogical, for a key part of the UK aviation sector – Heathrow airport – being decided upon BEFORE the UK aviation policy for the whole sector. Rationally, it would be the other way round – aviation policy first, and then decide on whether Heathrow should expand.

.

If true, this should not be any great surprise. The proposed scheme is far from settled and there are financial, environmental and legal impediments that would invariably prevent the scheme from commencing (even if the political obstacle is overcome).

The disconnect between the facts on the ground, and the public comments by HHL and the govermment are extraordinary. Perhaps this is the reality check they need to go back to square one and come up with a workable and deliverable scheme.

Back to square one. That thing we’ve done for the last 50 years?
It would just be yet another rerun of the same old arguements yet again, there’s nothing really fresh or new here. Our politics is paralysed as no one leads. I’d rather see the wrong decision made than none, even if that means building out a Gatwick that not one airline has asked for.

As far as I am aware, not one airline has asked for the current LHR scheme (i.e. one which would lead to increased charges).

Frankly, LHR are painted into a corner (partly of their own making) and it is difficult to see a way out. If that leads to an emergency expansion of LGW - which the government now accepts delivers a greater financial return for UK plc. - then that's not a bad outcome IMO.

I'd like to know how they're calculating that LGW offers a better financial return. Is it just a case of meddling with them to make it sound that way?

Heathrow should just go ahead and force the Government’s hand by submitting a full application for the third runway and associated works to the Planning Inspectorate. That should be dealt with fairly and independently with a recommendation being submitted to the Secretary of State. Remaining issues of land etc needn’t be sorted because you can submit an application on land you do not own.

Now, the SoS can go against the recommendation and there is no right to appeal. But if a refusal is unreasonable, ie because May, Johnson and a few other Tories *might* lose their seat, costs can be reclaimed. An awarding of costs along with the Inspectorate’s recommendation to approve would make an ongoing blockage of expansion untenable.

You think a new runway could be built anywhere in the Southeast without involving a Planning Inquiry ?

Bless.

I am sorry to say Airport Planner I think you are in cloud cuckoo land regarding a third runway at Heathrow or a new airport to be built in the south east of England. They have been trying since 1968 and still have got nowhere.

It's the same methodology that originally calculated that LHR produced the best financial return, but using more up to date figures.

I should clarify the difference between the schemes is pretty close, and it is only in 2050 that LGW mores ahead of LHR.

You didn’t know the old system of deciding nationally significant infrastructure projects was abolished by the coalition Government?

Bless.

But when its a package deal involving billions of public funding on associated road and rail schemes outside the perimeter fence, impacts on the M25 etc, it's a bit more complicated isn't it? Sure, I've seen public inquiries into runway extensions at regional airports where the Government has pretty much sat on the sidelines and said 'que sera'. But Heathrow---no chance. The next step will be the vote on the NPS. If that squeaks through, then the caravan moves on.

This would be a good way for LHR to loose the support of the Government, which would lead to the total collapse of the scheme for the foreseeable future. Ironically, it would make little difference due to the various impediments but that's bye the bye.

A good way to lose the support of this Government for sure, assuming they will still be in power after the next election.

Well said Dave - AP1 seems to think they're building an extension to his semi...

Whatever the outcome the lawyers will keep this one running for decades....

That's true, albeit:

1 - John McDonnell is hardly a fan of LHR expansion, so there is reason to believe any Labour government would not support the scheme: and
2 - forcing the current government's hand now would likely lead to the unsuccessful conclusion before the next election.

PINS (Planning Inspectorate) have been preparing for the third runway application for some time - clearing appeal caseloads, organising warehouses to store the 10,000+ documents that are going to be submitted, it’ll be the biggest app they’ll ever face. So I doubt they’ll be best impressed with any delays given the proposal should be submitted in due course.

The arithmetic is going to be interesting. Presumably it will turn on the numbers of Labour and SNP voting in favour of the NPS versus the number of Tories voting against. With the Select Committee having given rather conditional approval, it will be interesting to see how HAL play their response, especially to the proposition that aero charges should remain unchanged or increase only marginally. What package will they offer to persuade the waverers?

Of course a vote in parliament only gets over the political hurdle (assuming they don't create another legal problem in the process). The legal, financial and deliverability impediments remain.

The cost benefit analysis for Heathrow is damaged by TfL looking to suck as much money as they can (as you would) for their own budgets attached to anything Heathrow. So their costs are somewhat inflated, whereas HAL's are likely under-counted (again, as you would expect). HMG needs to crack on and make progress, it's beyond a joke. If not LHR, then LGW but would lack any serious long haul inbound. My main worry about Gatters is that they lose an anchor carrier every few years that really hurts them.
Laker, Dan Air, Air Europe, 1991 LHR opening lost them a load of long haul, VS original core long haul, BA's hub, XLA, MON and if I was a betting man, DY collapse at the next economic slowdown, and the majority of LGW's long haul growth is coming from them.

Agreed, but similar issues will arise at Gatters and the arguement will flip again. I am getting dizzy (!)
OK, please don't scare me, I have voted Labour in the past, but this fellow and his far-left cohorts are frightening people, especially if you are Jewish. I cannot countenance the country thinking Ed Milliband was unsuitable then deciding that Gerry Adam's best mate was the answer..... I of course, may well be wrong, on which case a new runway will be the least of our concerns.

Yes, totally. But the political hurdle is probably the Bechers Brook of the circuit.


If the horse falls, I'm not convinced the system will necessarily move on to LGW. There's another eye wateringly expensive scheme for what it offers.

It's rumoured that the search for an under-used hotel swimming pool is already under way. :O

Back to Basics
 

I have just arrived on BA12 5.20am from Singapore this morning. Getting from C stand to T5 via a long walk and then a train, then escalators, the folk surrounding me up to 1500 from 3 flights, like a central London station in rush hour and using the tube.
Do I assume that all 380's use these stands and the smaller aircraft use the T5 stands? The corridors were cold and damp with wet floors on the airbridges from the upper deck. 2 immigration staff directing UK pax to use the electronic gates. No baggage trolleys at baggage reclaim.
When is the CEO or top staff of HAL going to visit this chaos when the airport starts each morning
T 5 needs to get its act together, HAL do not deserve a another runway.
Changi was busy but clean and comfortable.

BA typically uses 555-557 and 562-565 for T5 A380 movements.

Those are indeed all on the T5C satellite.

God that sounds traumatic, are you ok? A busy A380 arrival? Who knew....?

Druk.
Thank you for the reply. Then they HAL & or BA should provide better facilities for the large number of arriving pax en mass at the same time. :uhoh: