In my view, R3 however useful will not be built because, the long term situation that was created by the failure to expand LHR in the last 30 years is that:

• Regional airfields expanded
• LCCs jumped into these 'local' fields
• The big European carriers jumped into these to collect into their hubs
• The ME carriers jumped into MAN (in particular) to collect into their hubs
• These regional fields provide great convenience and jobs
• The chances of the Euro + ME carriers saying 'Oooh Goody, we can get dozens of new slots into LHR' are miniscule
• The chances of the European LCCs wanting or getting slots is also miniscule
• The chances of pax in the West Country, Midlands, North and Scotland saying, 'Oooh Goody, we can now go back to making a transit in LHR' are zero

For those of us in the South East we also have Eurostar / Eurotunnel and ferry ports. My closest is LTN but LHR is (in typical traffic) only 40/45 mins. I can get to STN, LCY and LGW if I want. So demand in the South East is, now, over provided. If you are near MAN, you can make a one-stop to a range of destinations that was unthinkable in 2000.

Skipness
"Just be honest and say you just don't want aeroplanes (aircraft) flying over the house you wanted to spend a quiet retirement in."
Honesty? lived in the same road for the past 24 yrs, no need for a retirement home.
Job creation? also requires housing, little available in the area, little connectivity further out for staff to work shift patterns.
Infrastructure cost not to be borne by HAL? so increased taxation on others, when HAL do not pay sufficient taxes.
Carbon offsets? so choke this area while trees grow elsewhere.
Why not close Northolt, the little air traffic can go to Heathrow, and free up a vast area for housing for job creation?

"i's essential to press on and provide the infrastructure for economic growth, within an agreed environmental framework."

Indeed but building a new horror at LHR just so BA can make money out of transit passengers doesn't really hack it does it?

That's a tempting argument against expansion (others are available :O), but it's actually a bit of a red herring.

I've never quite understood the "ban transfer traffic" preoccupation of campaigners.

Apart from the fact that it's a tad impractical to frog-march every arriving passenger to the Tube to make sure they don't board another departing flight, many routes from LHR are only viable by virtue of carrying transfer traffic.

On one occasion my BA DEN - LHR flight was delayed and the crew were scurrying about trying to determine what connecting flights could still be caught to advise PAX whether running shoes would help or whether they'd have to enjoy departures for a few hours or at worst overnight.

I was quite amazed how many EU nationals were transiting seemingly to every city in Europe and it was about 40% of them on a 747.

Looking at LHR traffic yesterday and today, I have a question: has the RAF gone into the charter business? Yesterday, an Air Tanker A330 left Brize Norton for Amsterdam and then flew Amsterdam to LHR, using the civil reg G-VYGM, aka ZZ342. It made the trip LHR to AMS today and is due back at LHR at 16:10. What piqued my curiosity was the flight is using a Titan Airways call sign, AWC009. Today, one of Titan's, G-ZAPX flew back from somewhere to LHR, (allegedly from Ascension but I don't believe that, given its previous call was at Accra and those flights usually overnight in the Canary Islands), using AWC809.

The Air Tanker flight from AMS must be carrying fresh air as it is due at LHR at 16:10 and scheduled to depart again at 16:30, so loading and unloading wouldn't figure in that brief turn around time. I wonder if G-VYGM is the aircraft painted in the special Boris's Union Flag camouflage scheme?

The G-VYGxxxx aircraft are Air Tanker Ltd aircraft and are frequently leased to other civilian operators, eg; Jet 2, Thomas Cook (as was) etc. No it is not Boris-force one!

In recent days TUI have also been operating food/goods import charters to the UK as a result of the Channel port blockades.

787-8 G-TUIC has operated 5 Amsterdam-London Heathrow rotations over the last 3 days, positioning back to Gatwick from Heathrow at lunchtime today. Assume Air Tanker/Titan involved for similar reasons.

"I've never quite understood the "ban transfer traffic" preoccupation of campaigners."

It's not ban transfer traffic - it's that one of the main reasons given for expansion is to increase the national income - but if 30% of the users are only changing planes it doesn't exactly contribute much to the general pot...............

It comes to the same thing.

To quote from the website of one of the most prominent campaign groups: "expected future passenger demand can be met by substantially reducing transfers at Heathrow".

Strangely, no mention at all of how this objective would be achieved.

Most passengers have become aware of the lower costs to be acheived by a dog-leg route, rather than direct. The slew of online and 'apps' that search for flights show the cost savings. Many Brits use these and transit in mainland Europe. If the UK restricts transits here, then costs go up and the number of flights goes down. Not contributing to the UK in any way at all but the Brits have a long history of cutting off their nose to spite their face. Fortunately, I expect the current level of transits to remain and keep LHR full and in demand, even as the UK faces the outflow of companies due to Brexit.

Asturias56

It allows a borderline LHR-xyz route to be viable with connections, international travel is competitive, lot's of countries vying for your business and spending money. So, big spending Americans suddenly have a nonstop service to London without going via ATL or DFW for example and suddenly that Europe vacation goes to London and not Paris. That new European office comes to London and not Frankfurt. That attracts inward investment and create jobs.
The headbangers demanding, and it's always a demand, that transfer traffic be banned don't live in the real world economically. In an ever more connected world, in an ever more competitve world, we need to have one world class efficient and functioning hub airport. Let's aim to be Singapore rather than Montreal.

Mirabel. I mean, really, Mirabel.

Sadly, many companies have already moved departments to the EU, for all the obvious reasons. We had the advantage of speaking English that made us the natural European base for many companies around the world but we have thrown that away now. I cannot see many companies wanting to start up in Europe, base themselves in the UK. A branch office maybe.

But we'll know for sure in 10 years time.

" Let's aim to be Singapore rather than Montreal"


Singapore = 748 sq km

Canada = 9,985,000 sq km

Singapore year pax 2019-20
68 Million
Montreal
20 Million

Terminal 1
 

What's the current situation regarding the Terminal 1 buildings? Is the T1 baggage handling system still being used for T2? Demolition for the main T1 building must come eventually, but what's the plan leading up to that?

Does anyone know what's being built on the stands between terminal 2 and terminal 2A satellite building?

Currently an underground baggage hall and part of future tracked transit tunnel that will link T2A & T2B (Sat).
When complete, the 2 Kilo cul-de-sacs will be linked creating a through taxiway. 2 new stands will also be built on T2B.

With all that at T2, they can postpone the rebuilding of T1 for a couple of years.

Not quite, what's left of T1 is exactly where the buildout of T2 is going. There's a reason T2A has a blank black wall on the northern side, it's intended to be extended north into what was T1. So once T2 baggage is done, T1 can be demolished, although I have no view on the post COVID funding situation.