View Full Version : Crazy Gov't and ridiculous plans! over rwy's

16th Dec 2003, 00:35
Extra rwy at stanstead possible extra at birmingham and mixed mode at heathrow! all according to the guardian website

I guess we will wait 'til tomorrow as that is when the white paper will supposedly be made public. If it is true a dark day for UK aviation and siting of runways where they are not desparately needed.

16th Dec 2003, 03:06
BHX could almost double its capacity if it had a fast turn off on each runway. To threaten to demolish villages to build an new airport is criminal.

larry walker
16th Dec 2003, 03:40
I understand preparatory work on high speed turn off, or turn off's at BHX is taking place this winter. The work will be completed next winter.

I presume the other comment didn't relate to Birmingham.

Larry Walker

16th Dec 2003, 03:43
Exactly what I said on another thread some days ago:

"They've been talking about extending the present runway over the Coventry road since the 1960s ! Besides, I don't honestly believe that Brum needs an extra runway. It does need a couple more high speed turnoffs though".

By the way, I think you'll find that this gets moved to the Airports/Airlines forum.

larry walker
16th Dec 2003, 03:44
I hope the report is right about Birmingham.

It's just what the region needs.

Larry Walker

16th Dec 2003, 05:19
Geffen - have you been north of Watford recently?

16th Dec 2003, 05:58
There is a lot of nonsense being talked at present re the Governments long term plans for commercial aviation in the UK. Too many vested interests on both sides of the debate seem to be clouding judgements and biasing comments. Whichever side you are on don't forget the Government has to make decisions that are in the best interests of the nation as a whole and not for any one part of it or any one grouping. Industry and homes/communities have to be able to co-exist.

Aviation plays an important part in our national economy from which many of us benefit, as paying passengers and as employees of airlines, airports and support industries. However we also have to live together on a crowded and congested island with increasing levels of noise and fossil fuel pollution, from many different sources, and aviation is a significant and growing contributor to these. The Government is committed to limiting output of greenhouse gases from the UK as part of international agreements made at Montreal and Kyoto. It therefore has to balance many conflicting pressures and interests re protecting the global and national environment against further degradation, protecting industries and jobs within aviation, and ensuring that our green and pleasant land is not buried beneath ever more acres of concrete, tarmac and traffic congestion, which will be one by-product of increased runway capacity.

They have a difficult choice - should they concentrate more flights, more passengers, more congestion, more pollution and more concrete in one small area called Heathrow to keep the airlines happy and run the risk of breaching internatonal air pollution standards, thereby incurring the wrath if the EU, of many residents of Staines and the environmentalists - or should they perhaps spread runway construction and by definition aviation expansion throughout other regions of the UK, that could well benefit from the investment and jobs so created? This option would avoid many of the environmental obstacles and would ensure aviation develops in a more balanced way throughout our country rather than just in the Thames valley.

What would you do in Tony Blair's or Alistair Darling's shoes?

16th Dec 2003, 06:22
I agree with your post almost completely. As someone who has made their living for many years in aircraft maintenance I would like to see a strong and healthy business. There are at least two sides to every story though, and as you say the authorities have to try and please everyone. I'm sure they will fail though, because most people only see things from their perspective.
The bit of your post I wasn't too sure about is the last sentence. You're going to have the usual anti- Blair diatribe coming your way soon :)

16th Dec 2003, 07:27
Whilst LHR expansion might suit the airlines, personally I find it expensive to park there and a $od to get to in the first place thanks to some of the worst motorways in the UK.

Then there's the wait for the aged airport coaches, followed by 20 minutes stuck in the internal airport traffic jam, tours of strange concrete basements under T1 and then the joy of that squalid hole called T2. And it's even worse coming back; anyone arriving at T2 has that ridiculous trudge through passport control and then the appalling luggage carousels which belong in the 1960s. Then outside to stand in the rain waiting for that wretched bus again....

Contrast that with BHX or STN. Cheaper, less scruffy and a darn sight easier to get to. Sorry, LHR, but you really are an anachronism and any money spent attempting to increase your capacity should instead be used to expand the regionals. I now make it a policy to travel from BHX rather than LHR whenever possible.

16th Dec 2003, 10:39
The Government is committed to limiting output of greenhouse gases from the UK as part of international agreements made at Montreal and Kyoto. It therefore has to balance many conflicting pressures and interests re protecting the global and national environment against further degradation
Can someone please explain to me how more pax through Heathrow breaches global pollution agreements, but those same pax travelling through AMS or CDG instead miraculously does not ??

16th Dec 2003, 14:23
Work has commenced on building another turn off for runway 15 at BHX. Due for completion winter 04/05. This is not a Rapid exit taxiway (RETs) but more like a glorified version of taxiway "B" on runway 33. Given the difficulties of building a RET this was considered the best option by all those consulted, yes including airlines.

16th Dec 2003, 15:39
WHBM, I think the answer lies in the concentration of aircraft in the LHR area which will cause pollution. If you have two factories in a 1 square mile radius, the pollution levels will be higher for those living near the factory than 2 factories in a 100 square mile radius...

(Ready to be proved wrong though..)

I think it's sometimes easy to forget how much of a head-start airports like CDG / FRA / AMS have on LHR. Upon landing at AMS recently, I was delighted to see we were 20 mins ahead of schedule. However it took 10-15 minutes to get to the gate, not because of LHR-style traffic jams but because the runway we'd landed on was 3 miles away from the terminal! And there was nothing but countryside and a distinct lack of towns for all of those 3 miles. CDG's location and room to expand is excellent too.

16th Dec 2003, 20:53
Its Stanstead, Heathrow and Birmingham. BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3322277.stm)

Final 3 Greens
16th Dec 2003, 21:04
The problem is governments lack of will to make strategic decisions.

What London needs is not a 'bit here, bit there', but a new airport like Athens or a recycled airport like Oslo.

LHR is the big hub and spoke operation in the UK and needs to be replaced with another - now whether you use Stansted or a new build, someone has to have the b@lls make the right call now, which would involve killing LHR... of course, we in the UK tend to go for lash ups and this is exactly what this decision is.

Its no wonder the Europeans fall over laughing at the way we run our country.

Mark Lewis
16th Dec 2003, 21:24
This is a WHITE paper only. There are many more processes for this to go through, and the whole thing can change (And nearly always does). The first signs of the new proposals in the flesh won't be until 2011 at the earliest.
No need to panic just yet.

16th Dec 2003, 21:31

New runway at Stansted "as soon as possible"

New runway and possible sixth terminal at Heathrow between 2015 and 2020

Environmental conditions imposed on Heathrow's expansion

No new runway at Gatwick until after 2019 - and then only if Heathrow conditions not met

New runway at Birmingham

Possible new runway at Edinburgh by 2020

Possible runway extensions at Aberdeen and Inverness

No new Midlands airport, East Midlands to expand without new runway

Extra terminal and runway extension at Bristol

Proposed new airport at Cliffe, Kent abandoned

:D No expansion of Luton Airport :D

Extra terminal capacity at Manchester and Liverpool Lennon

Expanded terminal and runway at Newcastle

Capacity to increase at Cardiff but no new south-east Wales airport

Shaggy Sheep Driver
16th Dec 2003, 21:57
Extra terminal capacity at Manchester? Wonder where that will be? A southern terminal at Mobberley, maybe, so they can make better use of the new runway?


16th Dec 2003, 22:03
An excellent set of proposals. At long last investment will be chanelled to somewhere other than Thiefrow. Much as the big boys at Virgin, British Midland and ba might wring their hands and gnash their teeth, it's about time that the regional airports were given more investment.

New terminal and runway extensions at Bristol (Lulsgate)? How will they extend the runway - over the road or over the cliffs? Good luck to them if they can - but will there ever be proper road access to Lulsgate direct from the M5? Access and fog have been the Achilles' heel of BRI ever since the airport moved from Whitchurch (which I can just remember!)

Off to Birrmigoom again tomorrow - so much more convenient for folk such as me who live exactly half-way between Elmdon and Thiefrow!

16th Dec 2003, 22:36
Perhaps its time to move BRS to Filton.

16th Dec 2003, 22:39
Having compared the reporting by the BBC to the summary of the Government's conclusions, there are some noticeable errors in the BBC's reports ... e.g. "no expansion at Luton" whereas the Government have only said "no" to a second runway at Luton - they have not said no to expansion..

The link to the full report is:


The summary of the White Paper is as follows:

The Future of Air Transport - Summary
Summary of the Government’s proposals


We reached our conclusions in conjunction with the Scottish Executive.

We do not support the development of a new central Scotland airport.

We support safeguarding land for a new close parallel runway and associated terminal and stand capacity at Edinburgh Airport.

We support the provision of additional terminal and airside facilities at Glasgow International Airport and the safeguarding of land to allow full use of the existing runway. We recommend that the local authority consider reserving further land for longer-term development.

We consider that the terminal and support facilities at Glasgow Prestwick should be developed to meet likely increases in traffic.

We believe there is a good case for developing the terminal at Aberdeen. We invite the operators to assess growth so that land for a runway extension can be safeguarded if necessary.

We believe Dundee Airport will attract more services and will be able to expand its terminal to cater for these.

The runway at Inverness Airport may need to be extended and terminal capacity expanded. Other Highlands and Islands airports may need enhancing.

We reached our conclusions in conjunction with the Welsh Assembly.

We agree that the terminal at Cardiff International Airport should be developed and its exact form decided locally.

We have examined two proposals for a new airport in or around the Severn Estuary east of Newport, but we believe that such an airport would struggle to attract traffic. We do not think it is worth taking forward.

The Welsh Assembly Government is working to establish a network of air services within Wales.

Northern Ireland
Our conclusions take account of the Northern Ireland authorities’ views.

We support the development of Belfast International Airport within its existing boundaries to serve forecast demand.

Belfast City Airport faces significant constraints. We invite the Northern Ireland authorities to review the form of the planning ‘cap’, if and when the operator asks them to.

The Northern Ireland authorities will want to consider the future requirements of City of Derry Airport carefully, together with the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

The North of England
(North East, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber)
We support the principle of developing terminal capacity at Manchester Airport provided the noise impacts of the airport are rigorously controlled. Significant further work will also be needed to improve surface access.

We agree that Liverpool John Lennon Airport should expand as projected and for the runway to be lengthened in the future, provided it doesn’t intrude on nearby protected sites.

We are content that any proposals for expansion at Blackpool Airport should be decided locally. We encourage plans to develop Carlisle Airport.

We support plans for expansion of terminal facilities and a 360m runway extension at Newcastle Airport.

We support extensions to both terminal facilities and runway length at Teesside International Airport.

We support the development of additional termial capacity and a 300m runway extension at Leeds Bradford International Airport, provided every effort is made to minimise aircraft noise.

We agree that Humberside International Airport should attract all the traffic it can, although it will soon compete with a new airport at Doncaster Finningley.

The Midlands
The Government does not support the option of a new airport between Coventry and Rugby.

We support a second runway at Birmingham International Airport. We prefer the wide-spaced option, but with the new runway limited to 2,000m and with other improvements as proposed in the airport operator’s ‘Birmingham Alternative’. Development should be subject to stringent limits on noise, which should be kept under review.

We believe that the projected expansion of passenger and freight traffic at East Midlands Airport should be permitted, but only with strict controls on night noise. We do not support a second runway or safeguarding of land for one, but will keep this under review.

The development of Coventry Airport, Wolverhampton Business Airport and any civil use of RAF Cosford are matters for local determination.

The South West
We support the development of Bristol International Airport, including a runway extension and new terminal when needed. But we do not support the option of a new airport north of Bristol.

We agree that Bournemouth International Airport should add to the capacity of its terminal.

We expect Exeter International Airport to expand and see no need to impose any strategic caps. If any are needed, they can be decided locally.

We did not consult on the proposal for a new airport east of Plymouth so we shall leave this decision to local and regional authorities.

We welcome plans to develop Newquay Airport.

We believe that Gloucester and Filton airports should continue serving business aviation needs.

We believe that links with the Isles of Scilly should be protected.

The South East
Our first priority is to make best use of the existing runways at the major South East airports. Beyond that, we support the building of two new runways in the South East in the period to 2030.

We support development as soon as possible (around 2011/2012) of a second runway at Stansted as the first new runway for the South East. Noise should be strictly controlled, and loss of heritage and countryside kept to a minimum. We do not support options for two or three new runways at Stansted.

We support development of Heathrow provided that strict environmental limits can be met, including a new runway as soon as possible after Stansted (in the 2015–2020 period). We look to the operator to safeguard land for it. We propose an urgent programme of work to tackle the air quality problems at Heathrow and consider how best to use the existing airport.

We believe that land should be safeguarded for a new wide-spaced runway at Gatwick both on its own merits and in case the conditions attached to a new Heathrow runway cannot be met. But we will not act to overturn the planning agreement preventing a second runway before 2019. We do not support the option for two new runways at Gatwick.

We support the growth of Luton up to the maximum use of one runway, but we do not support a second runway.

We do not believe that there is a strong case for creating a second hub in the South East, whether or not a third runway is built at Heathrow.

We do not support a new airport at Cliffe, because of its ecological damage, safety risk and doubtful viability.

We do not support development of Alconbury for passengers or freight but we recognise the potential to move aircraft maintenance there from Cambridge.

We believe that there is considerable scope for London City, Norwich, Southampton, Southend, and Manston to help meet demand for air services. Nor should the potential of Lydd, Shoreham, and Biggin Hill be overlooked.

We do not support any of the other proposals for alternative locations put forward during the consultation.

16th Dec 2003, 23:22
What a complete and total ba**s-up and whitewash! To publish a white paper largely relating to airport developments for the years 2010-2030 is doing no more than writing a post-dated cheque.
RULE 1 in politics: Create the illusion that you are calmly in control while you're fire-fighting.
RULE 2: Make sure that when questions have to be answered, someone is there to carry the can.

Is it any wonder that folks choose not to vote... I've never been cynical, but dear God! Happy Christmas every body. bm

17th Dec 2003, 00:27
Thanks for the summary - but you make no mention of the possibility of mixed mode op of LHR's runways - is this too politically difficult (and therefore likely to be dealt with separately from the White Paper) do you think?:mad:

17th Dec 2003, 01:19
"Perhaps its time to move BRS to Filton."


Should have happened decades ago but it won't, and we have gone over the reasons before in these forums.


As to runway extension I presume it will be at the eastern (A 38) end, and I guess that the recently diverted A 38 will be sunk into the long-discussed cut and cut cover tunel. If it ever happens at all, that is.

Like you I can remember Whitchurch, and what a pity the city council did not move to Filton then when they had the chance in the 1950s instead of going south to Lulsgate.

I cannot see a link with the M 5 or the Bristol to Exeter railway line coming into being - too expensive and too many environmental difficulties. Mind, I lived near the airport in the 1950s long before the M 5 was built and the A 38 was far busier then than it is now. It had hundreds of long-distance lorries trundling along each day for a start, which it doesn't have these days.

17th Dec 2003, 01:42
It could have been an awful lot worse (i.e. with regard to Heathrow); 12 years is, however, a long time, but at least the door isn't closed. There is general recognition that LHR has huge economic importance. HOWEVER, what I didn't see (and maybe it will be announced in the coming weeks) is any proposal or announcement in relation to LHR operating in mixed mode, which is likely to add around 6% (?) to the number of slots available.

Hopefully, at least some of these extra flights can be used to boost internal/regional flights.

Still, with FRA, LHR and CDG each getting/having already got new runways, you can't help thinking that LHR was hard done by.

What can they do about N02 emissions? Restrict access? Electric ground vehicles? New electric rail links (for example to LGW)?

Mark Lewis
17th Dec 2003, 02:09
The mixed mode operation hasn't been dealt with really here, they mention a seperate public consultation to discuss that!

Some of the think-tanks have some quite radical ideas about N02 emissions, including further restrictions on the types of aircraft/engines allowed to operate into the UK.

17th Dec 2003, 04:13
Dear all,

What this White Paper seems to fail to solve is the actual issue at hand. The expected rise in passenger numbers over the period in question is 300%. The population of this country will not increase by even 10% of that amount in the same time. So where is everyone going? The government states that air travel is essential to our economy. Why is it essential that 3 times as many people vacation abroad in 20 years. That is only helping the economies of whereever these people are going. As for business travellers, with e-mail, phones and increased capability video conferencing why the need to fly to Paris to meet your banker. Why the need to jet across the pond to talk to the VP in charge of purchasing?

This small island has a limit to its airspace and its landspace. This White Paper does nothing to solve any of the problems facing this country, it simply kicks the problem down the road for a future generation to deal with.

I am not some mad tree-hugging, sandal wearing, tofu-eating nimby. This White Paper deals with the symptoms not the disease. Typical of politicos and big business.



17th Dec 2003, 04:24
RET's won't double capacity at Brum, nor anything like it. They'll add about 10 - 20% at most.

17th Dec 2003, 05:40
Re the "Noxious Gases" featured in the BBC report...
Are our European "Friends" going to abide to the set limits?

Say again s l o w l y
17th Dec 2003, 06:47
A change to mixed mode at LHR would increase runway capacity by about 10 ATM an hour, coming to around 90 per HR. If this was the case then the annual ATM's would increase to a possible 551,000. Far in excess of the 480,000 cap imposed in the T5 enquiry.

A brand spanking new airport off the coast a la Chep Lak Kok would have been the bold plan, but instead that monstrosity of an airport at heathrow may get another addition that it can't cope with properly.

Long term Heathrow is unsustainable and if airlines such as BA want to compete long term then there needs to be an integrated plan involving high speed rail links and some decent access, rather than the car park that is the M25 and the god awful rail links. (Heathrow express is O.K if you are going to central London, but it's pricy and a trek across London with cases, jet lag and sqauling brats is a horrible prospect if you are going to any other part of the U.K)

17th Dec 2003, 08:03
Could always trial that by towing John Lennon Airport out to the Mersey Estury

Golf India Bravo

Max Angle
17th Dec 2003, 08:37
Seems to me that the problem that is not being addressed by the white paper is airspace capacity. Building new runways is all very well but if the airspace around them is saturated what's the point. I spend a great deal of my time climbing and descending in the London TMA and it feels, looks and sounds pretty close to bursting most of the time. It's hard to see how the forecast increases in traffic are going to happen without a drastic change in the way airspace is controlled and managed.

Eddie Ginley
17th Dec 2003, 17:20

As Olney One Bravo has already pointed out Alistair Darling has in fact approved expansion at Luton by sanctioning maximum use of a full-length runway (extension to existing implied) - and therefore the potential to handle up to 30 million pax per annum by 2030 (from the present 6.7 million).

This has all been "washed away" a bit in the media / public's attention being concentrated on NEW runways...

Excellent news for LTN then - but as has also been pointed out elsewhere in this string already, this is just the beginning of a very long process.

Eddie Gumshoe Ginley:O

Say again s l o w l y
17th Dec 2003, 18:59
There does seem to be some changes to the airspace in and around the LTMA, I was chatting to a chap from NATS who mentioned that airspace around Essex was certainly going to change as a part of a bigger shake up.

Don't know all the details but hopefully this may help to alleviate some of the problems around London.

Krystal n chips
17th Dec 2003, 19:08
On the lighter side of the debate re. new Runways, a truly insightful comment on C4 News last night from "on the ball " reporter---" Stansted will have the first new Runway in the UK since the War"----or words to that effect-----thus demonstrating her knowledge of Aviation matters -----and that little stretch of concrete that appeared overnight at MAN. :confused: :hmm:

17th Dec 2003, 19:14
Just a quick note about theoretical runway capacity at heathrow. At the moment you are looking at approx 42 inbounds and 45 plus outbounds in a busy hour. Now by my thinking gatwick and stansted are running about 55+ an hour when very busy so that really means about an extra 15-20 movements an hour at heathrow. Which would potentially allow an extra 225-300 ATM's a day or 82125-109500 flights a year. Again this is assuming 15 hrs of open time at heathrow a day. All theoretical as Ground would become an absolute nightmare unless the SIDS were abolished and we went more down the route of firing of on headings and letting someone on radar catch them and point them in the right direction. Another point to note is that at the moment there is not the excess stand capacity to allow for that many more movements an hour maybe when T5 is fully operational.

18th Dec 2003, 00:22
Hey people
At least you don't have to put with our MANS (major air needs of Sydney) committee to fix everything for you. As far as I know they have been sitting for over 30 years and recently they finally made a decision :ok:
They finally decided where they were NOT going to build the new airport :confused:
Imagine all the things they couldn't do for you too.