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: