Heathrow Plans (Merged)

[HeathrowAirport]

‘Boris Island’ airport may replace Heathrow

The London mayor plans to shut down the city’s main airport and build a new four-runway hub in the Thames estuary


Now his officials are drawing up proposals to close it and replace it with a 24-hour airport located on an artificial island in the Thames estuary. Why can't he just think about the amount of people who will loose Jobs and how hard it will be for those who mostly live Near Heathrow to travel across not just one side of London but that and Kent.

Yeah there is the Eurostar that stops near by and could be extended... But Bohoo. That wont work as everyone has to go through Central/city of London to get there.

How the does a Runway cost this much to build?

The government is expected to decide by the end of the year whether to allow a controversial third runway to be built at Heathrow, at a cost of up to £13 billion. Terminal 5 looks better than a Runway at just £3BN

How many think this will never happen, i believe it wont.

‘Boris Island’ airport may replace Heathrow - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4794832.ece)

[Longhitter]

If they can do it in Hong Kong why shouldn't it be possible in London? I can see Boris's point there. Joblosses? BS, just a longer commute for people who live close to LHR now. It would deconflict a lot of things I guess.

[Contacttower]

Essential problem for Boris is that he doesn't have the power to close Heathrow or build a new airport. The decision has to be made by the Government and I think it's pretty unlikely they are going to do that in the near future....although the idea does have some advantages...

[ZFT]

The sooner LHR is a thing of the past, the better. Every experience there is a nightmare. (Of course it will never happen).

Kong Kong, Osaka and other have already proven the viability of such an airport relocation.

[SpringHeeledJack]

Perhaps Boris had better have a word in God's ear, because the site somewhere on the Maplin Sands is a bird migratory route and perhaps due to the changing weather systems a permanent bird nesting area. Can you imagine trying to get insurance cover for aircraft movements if the risk of bird ingestion were so high ?

The idea of placing the main airport away from the city is a sound one and will/would be made without thought to the business health of west London, but for the business health of London as a whole and the surrounding regions. As for whether this might happen in our lifetime is debatable. My guess is that they will build the 3rd runway and curse another section of this massive city to
near permanent noise pollution. I don't believe that the UK governments (whichever) are capable of making the huge infrastructure decisions that are apparent in many other countries in the world. We will see.


Regards


SHJ

[AMEandPPL]

Now his officials are drawing up proposals to close it and replace it with a 24-hour airport located on an artificial island in the Thames estuary

About time too ! I've espoused this idea for a long time, and especially after BA038 in Jan. What if the failure had happened just minutes earlier ? Large jets full of people over central London all day every day is just ASKING for a tragedy to happen eventually.

UK's prevailing winds are usually westerly, so great majority of approaches would be over open water. Distance wise it would not be much further from central London than Gatwick or Stansted.

What an opportunity to plan, design, and build an airport for the Capital which really could serve for most of the next millennium !

[Skipness One Echo]

God is this airliners.net? Speaking as someone who lives in London as opposed to the spotters view from a 1000 miles away I say stop getting all excited! This is political posturing as you all ought to know. They are not going to destroy the habitats of a myriad of rare and priceless birds and concrete half way across the East Coast. Really. Having given the go ahead for Heathrow East, Terminal 5 and the Heathrow Express that's a lot of captial gone to waste in the past ten years!

This new white elephant would be beyond the Heathrow catchment area which could fragment to closer airports and is way out of my way as a Heathrow customer. Politicians talk the talk, Cameron indulges Zac Goldsmith but the Conservatives will come under IMMENSE pressure from people to approve the building of a new runway at Heathrow.

[Globaliser]

Speaking as someone who lives in London as opposed to the spotters view from a 1000 miles away I say stop getting all excited! This is political posturing as you all ought to know. They are not going to destroy the habitats of a myriad of rare and priceless birds and concrete half way across the East Coast. Really.Exactly. I don't know how Boris can possibly think that there is any realistic prospect that this idea will float (or fly) this time, when it's got exactly the same problems as have killed the idea every single time it's previously been mooted.

[Rocky1987]

I am unsure as to how they came up with £13 Billion! A 12 mile, 4 lane bypass has recently been opened close to me and the cost of this was £52 million. It's lit most of the distance and has been dug approx 40ft lower than the surrounding ground so I cant see how a runway would cost 25 times that amount! I appreciate it would take a lot more abuse from several hundred tonne planes every few minutes, but I would be interested to see how they justify this cost.

[Skipness One Echo]

About time too ! I've espoused this idea for a long time, and especially after BA038 in Jan. What if the failure had happened just minutes earlier ? Large jets full of people over central London all day every day is just ASKING for a tragedy to happen eventually.

Hysterical nonsense. I lived near a town where a B747 crashed and demolished an entire street. A plane crash is a tragedy anywhere. Presumably you advocate closing London City at once? Or would a 146 into Canary Wharf be OK?
Gatwick outbounds also fly over central London as do the long hauls from Europe. Let's send them the long way round as well? I think perspective is becoming an endangered species these days:ugh:

ANYONE with any experience of project managing a large construction project within the UK KNOWS that the figures quoted are absurdly low. Look at the Olympics, pitch a low imaginary figure, close the sale and then double, triple it and then keep climbing with the quotes. This would be the biggest construction project in Europe, as we head into recession, in the middle of a sea lane home to a huge amout of rare and protected species. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Dust off the Maplin brochures and go back to sleep. A properly regulated Runway 3 and more control on BAA would fix a lot of Heathrow's problems. Terminal 5 HAS started a long slow transformation process which Heathrow East will build upon.

As for noise? Well I hardly think there's many people that didn't know the bloody airport was there when they moved in voluntarily.

1960s : B707 / B727 / DC8 / DC9 / BAC111 / VC10 / Trident / Caravelle

1970s : B747 / L1011 / DC10 / Concorde

1980s : B757 / B767 / A310 / A320

1990s : B737NG / A330 / A340 / MD11 / EMBs

2000s : A380

Think of a taxy-ing Viscount and then whinge about "NOISE!!!!"

P E R S P E C T I V E

[SpringHeeledJack]

Think of a taxy-ing Viscount and then whinge about "NOISE!!!!"

Ah nostalgia! What's a dart between friends ? ;) I remember as a young boy lying in bed at night and the late evening departure of a VC-10 heading eastwards across the city would reverberate sometimes for up to 10mins if the atmospherics were helpful.....that was loud. Nowdays it's just a brief rise in noise and then it's gone, it really is all about perspective, as Skipness states.

Also, as stated, the amount spent (finally after decades of dithering) on needed infrastructure at LHR was for a reason. Why do you think that the area to the north west of LHR was never built on in any meaningful way ? The plan has always been for a third runway and it will be implemented no matter how many protests from residents and interested parties.

It is said that you can judge a country by it's airport (main) and that being the case LHR does the job nicely :O I'll leave it up to you to provide the interpretation.


Regards


SHJ

[beamender99]

1960s : B707 / B727 / DC8 / DC9 / BAC111 / VC10 / Trident / Caravelle


IL62 and a few more.

and how many have bought houses in the area since the 60s?

I lived close to the outer marker between 28L /28R for 15 years with no double glazing in my house. I bought the house in 65 and survived.

I was one of the few who saw Concorde on its first ( unscheduled ) approach to LHR. Noise protests? What noise protests?

I miss the last RAF VC10s out of LHR. It was an opportunity to remind the moaners what "normal" aircraft used to sound like rather them using Concorde as an example.

The cost of the Olympics will kill off any thoughts of Maplin for decades.
Add the Crossrail costs and although this would make Maplin closer ( in journey time) for many it will also suck up funds.

The sooner the new runway is built the better.

[HeathrowAirport]

Gatwick outbounds also fly over central London as do the long hauls from Europe.

Only LAM and CLN SID's

I also live in London to be exact, i live exactly below the ILS for 27R and noise is not a Problem.. I don't know what pollution does to us but the noise is not much. I would like to see something like Atlanta in the UK, busy as that.. I seen the ILS on Airnav and there's like 15-20 a/c on 5 Runways ILS. As for moving an airport... That's going to make Heathrow ten times as worse as there will be no ivestment into the Airport.

I say just expand Heathrow so there's room to accomodate more traffic.

[Skipness One Echo]

Only LAM and CLN SID's

I also live in London to be exact, i live exactly below the ILS for 27R and noise is not a Problem.. I don't know what pollution does to us but the noise is not much. I would like to see something like Atlanta in the UK, busy as that.. I seen the ILS on Airnav and there's like 15-20 a/c on 5 Runways ILS. As for moving an airport... That's going to make Heathrow ten times as worse as there will be no ivestment into the Airport.

I say just expand Heathrow so there's room to accomodate more traffic.

Atlanta has S P A C E. In London, there is little room in both airspace and on the ground but it can be done if done intelligently. However this is Britian after 10 years of Nanny Labour! Therefore it's a rather bigger ask than in other countries.
You are a Heathrow Fan clearly, and on a good day I can be too. However last Friday I had to sprint the full length of the domestic pier at T1, ( why I wasn't arrested for behaving suspiciosly I don't know, I mean FULL SPRINT all the way to Gate 8, anyhow I digress ). The security muppet forgot to take my piccy and so I therefore couldn't prove that I wasn't an asylim seeker from Africa trying to get around immigration by flying on domestically to Aberdeen.... I loved the lecture from mr Rude BAA Man that it was in my own interests to carry my passport when flying domestically as I am now forced to use the Mall on T1 as dedicated domestic search has been withdrawn.

You can't keep ramming so many passengers through without the proper investment. BAA has NOT invested as it was in their interests to sweat the retail assets rather than invest in proper passenger facilities. Hence the reason so many connecting passengers now use Schipol, CDG or Dubai.
Heathrow is not supposed to be a plane spotters / enthusiasts wet dream, it is supposed to be a functioning facility that gets me from A to B without fuss, not my local shopping nightmare.
BAA are trying to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Let's not let them.

Incidentally neither Clacton or Lambourne SIDS are routed over central London.......


Oooh forgot Tu-134 / TU154, Mercures (?) and Comets in the 1960s and onwards.....

[Facelookbovvered]

They will be lucky to put a new runway in for £13bn, sure the runway on its own won't cost that but it has to be linked to the main airport, so that will be major work to get Bath road under it at least twice and then there will be terminal 6 or 7. After that there is compensation for relocation and additional sound proofing for however many?

Another air traffic control tower, ILS power supplies, water sewage, road links, rail links, think £20bn?!! a new site won't cost anymore and you have the growth to cope with it.

It will only make any sense if LHR is closed other wise most operators will stay put, BTW it will probably finish LCY off as well, but the land will be worth a fortune by then

$million dollar question, will happen, i doubt it, but LHR will get R3 is my bet

[jabird]

Does everyone really have such short memories?

I'm all for recycling, but Boris has plagiarised the Cliffe Airport proposal, dismissed for good reason, and passed it off as his own, just to grab a few headlines to steal the limelight from hash Gordon, who is trying to single handedly take the credit for reducing the price of oil!

[Skylion]

There is no chance at all of this happening. After 10 plus years of Brown UK plc is bust and already the man is saying he is going to borrow even more.
Hong Kong had the money, plus a largely Korean workforce on fixed rates, no scams and a with a dynamic work ethic who worked 24/7/365 whereas on T5 there was little or no night or weekend working. Can you see that being "allowed" to happen here?

[SR71]

LHR needs 2 or 3 extra runways if its to handle forecast growth for any significant period.

It is pointless adding only 1.

When did LHR first become constrained by capacity?

1 year ago? 5 years ago? 10 years ago?

What this government calls investment is merely rearguard action to ameliorate demand which has been constrained for years.

Investment means an airport which will operate at substantially less than 100% capacity for a significant period of time henceforth....

Personally, we should build a new one.

LHR is a national disgrace.

[jonnymac]

A new Airport at Stirling is on th cards and three will close EDINBURGH, GLASGOW, and DUNDEE. It makes sense for Scotland .

[jabird]

Yeah, and let's build a new airport between Rugby and Coventry whilst we're at it.

All looked at in the White Paper, all dismissed - we can't even get a new terminal here, and that's just to handle 2m pax per year without any investment needed on the kind of scale mentioned above.

New airports on greenfield (or muddy marsh) sites in the UK?

Who will pay? No-one
How will they get past the nimby and the green lobby? They won't

Pigs will sprout wings before any of these proposals leave the drawing board.

[Donkey497]

Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee to Close
A new Airport at Stirling is on th cards and three will close EDINBURGH, GLASGOW, and DUNDEE. It makes sense for Scotland .



Oooooo! Take that tongue out of your cheek before the wind changes & leave these southern folks to all their perceived problems. Another unway at LHR isn't going to give any more airspace above the south east of englandshire, which is probably a bigger driver of congestion for them.

[SinBin]

Without sounding rude, this is classic NIMBYISM, if you don't like aircraft noise, which let's face it is generally quieter and cleaner now than ever before, then don't move near the world's busiest international airport. Most light aircraft make more of a noise nuisance nowadays.

[call100]

Calm down everyone....Boris has only commissioned a feasibility study. Lets not get carried away with the usual hysteria. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[gate 22]

I think its an excellent idea. They did it in Hong Kong. Airports should be kept away from built up areas at all costs. Not only noise but safety in general. Most accidents happen during take-off landing, there has already been a Trident into Slough a 777 just inside the boundary. Also most of the recent accidents that spring to mind seem to happen close to the airport Madrid......blah blah (even UK accidents Kegworth, Manchester).
An airport out in the Estuary (24 hour operation) with fast rail links into Central London, solves all the issues with regard to expansion at LHR-it may be costly but it would be worth it.

[gate 22]

Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee to Close
A new Airport at Stirling is on th cards and three will close EDINBURGH, GLASGOW, and DUNDEE. It makes sense for Scotland

Another good idea, one large airport on a green field site away from built-up areas, near the motorways and with a railway station. Great for everybody, more choice of destinations from one airport that is easily accessable, with frequent trains into both Glasgow and Edinburgh. Free up areas in Glasgow and Edinburgh for development. Great for the environment with massive scaling down of frequencies eg LHR/EDI & GLA less rotations as these would be combined, maybe larger aircraft but still still providing a frequent service. This would run out on all routes.

[Skipness One Echo]

No it's a crazy idea. Frequent fliers, ie me, want the airport near them. You would have to forcibly shut Prestwick and compensate Infratil as the Glasgow traffic would fragment to Prestwick and this new super airport. It would also be less than ideal for Edinburgh businessmen as it's.....NOT NEAR EDINBURGH. So aside from being less than ideal for both markets it's a brilliant solution (!)

Gate 22, in the South East, we have NOWHERE away from built up areas that ANYONE is gonna let you concrete over. There's precious little unspoilt land as is. Be realistic. Be grounded. Be sensible. Be prudent. We don't have the same society as Hong Kong, the same builders or costs.

IT'S NOT EVER GOING TO HAPPEN IN LONDON, GLASGOW OR EDINBURGH. Deal with it. The rest is just hot air and blah blah.

On a more Heathrow note, anyone know what's being built between the piers at Terminal 1? Is it part of the Heathrow East project?

[nebpor]

LOL at the thought of 'em shutting 3 scottish airports and moving to a new one on Stirling - it must be April 1st already :ok:

[plasticAF]

Thought I remembered the plan, my grandparents lived at Thorpe Bay in the 70's. Even then Grandfather said it was a b:mad:y stupid idea and wouldn't work.
Who knows in these green and security driven times though.
No bets from me on a new airport. I'll go with LHR expansion.

plastic

[silverstreak]

A Central Scotland Airport in Falkirk (Skinflats area by Grangemouth) was indeed planned in the mid 90s, but never got any further than the 'planning' stage.

It would benefit Scotland, and make life easier for passengers and airlines - using one central airport, and I for one would be all for it, however cant see it happening anytime soon... Cost, politics and the length of time 'public consultations / enquiries' take, would totally finish the idea off...

BUT - look at the UAE and their take on tourism and jobs... They are building another airport in Dubai, as well as upgrading the existing one.
OK, ok they do have zillions to spend, but they are looking ahead and making facilities available...

We live in hope!

[Skipness One Echo]

At the moment I can choose from flying from Prestwick, Glasgow or at a push Edinburgh. Exactly how does concreting over a substantial chunk of unspoilt countryside, p***ing off the locals and relocating / sacking a lot of people help?

So we can travel further to have a few more destinations in bigger aircraft? Never gonna happen. Grandiose politicians spending other people's money....

[Dan D'air]

I still think that the answer to the overuse of LHR would have been to have converted Greenham Common into a civvy airport. It had a ready-made very long runway, the terminals could have been built on the old Cruise silo sites and it would have served the area most in need of a third runway. What better way of converting swords into ploughshares??

[manintheback]

The 3rd runway is never going to be built. Even if it were it would make absolutely no difference to Heathrow congestion as BAA plan to max it to capacity as soon as it opens. Gatwick is far better placed for multiple runway operations.

[LHR27C]

Gatwick is far better placed for multiple runway operations.

Except that, um, it isn't allowed to even think about building another runway until 2020?

[WHBM]

A runway can easily cost up to £13bn, if you think of the amount of raw material needed (tarmac/concrete) which has to be of a certain strength and structure I would imagine considering tonnes of weight touching down constantly.
The other main cost is the labour required, to build a runway is a long time consuming task which is going to require a lot of man power so they are going to need paying!
Finally you have the cost of light fittings, I remember reading somewhere that there are tens of thousands of light bulbs on a runway so I wouldn't want to be the one fitting them all in! :ok:
Those of us from a construction background considered the cost of the proposed new Stansted runway in a thread here a while ago (search if you wish), and I calculated that the concrete required was being costed at some £7,000 per cubic metre. Compared to the actual cost of the stuff, which is typically about £60-70 per cubc metre, delivered. With such nonsenses in the costing, that's how a new runway ends up costing £13bn.

Regarding Grand New Airports miles from the city they serve, let's look at a recent example :

Montreal Mirabel. A 1970s project exactly like this one, built in the woods on a grand scale miles from the city. Shunned by passengers and by all airlines apart from those forced by law to use it. The day after the law was rescinded every carrier left for the old Dorval/Trudeau facility. Mirabel is now abandoned.

[Xeque]

There is already a third runway just 5 miles north of Heathrow. It's at Northolt. It's already in use, it has existing major rail and road links, it's 5,500 ft long X 130 ft wide and whilst (at 25/07) it's not quite parallel to Heathrow's runways it's near enough to be workable. All that will be required is a terminal and an underground rail link to join with the Piccadilly Line for access to Heathrow's existing terminals.
That's going to cost a whole lot less than the astronomic sums of UK tax payers money that are being suggested as start up figures for a new runway. We all know that it will end up costing at least three times more and taking twice as long to complete than the estimates provided by those who would be the lowest bidders for the work.
And let's not forget the thousands of ordinary folk who would not then need to be forcibly uprooted from their homes and communities, relocated and compensated before work could commence on clearing the ground for a new runway that will, in all probability be inadequate by the time it's eventually commissioned.
Build a new airport in the Thames estuary - the only sane solution. Relocate the bobbalinks (or whatever) instead.
One way of getting such a project in on time would be to recruit the same team - management and workforce - that built Hong Kong's new airport. Now wouldn't that put the cat among the pigeons :ok:

[Seat62K]

The Montreal-London comparison is a poor one for all sorts of reasons. Better ones might be Paris or New York. What would air travel to and from Paris be like if the French government did not have the foresight to build a new airport at Roissy (more-or-less at the same time the UK government was dithering over Roskill)?

[manintheback]

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Except that, um, it isn't allowed to even think about building another runway until 2020?
------------------------------------------------------------------

2019. Which isnt disimilar to runway 3 at LHR. And given that Gatwick Airport is surrounded by green fields in all directions (well looks like it is everytime I drive there and look out of a window when landing or departing), has to work better than the current location of Heathrow which may have been fine in 1940 but certainly isnt now. And will it ever get a proper rail link? (Crossrail wont happen either)

[Skipness One Echo]

Gatwick is in stockbroker belt and the demand for the second runway is at Heathrow, as are all the major airlines that paid millions for slots to get out of Gatwick. The people that live near Gatwick are very influential and will in my view manage to stop plans for any second runway.

Gatwick and Stansted are holiday airports, Heathrow is a world hub that needs good connections. Landing the Glasgow shuttle on a short runway at Northolt and then making a five mile connection isn't going to win you high yield business passengers.

There are good reasons why these ideas were dismissed and they have been debated before alas. A proper third runway at Heathrow should also insist upon the return of connections to Jersey, Guernsey, Inverness and other parts of the UK domestic framework that have lost their quick link to the world.

Crossrail will happen, it HAS to. The Central Line is killing me slowly (!)

[nebpor]

A Central Scotland Airport in Falkirk (Skinflats area by Grangemouth) was indeed planned in the mid 90s, but never got any further than the 'planning' stage.

It would benefit Scotland, and make life easier for passengers and airlines - using one central airport, and I for one would be all for it, however cant see it happening anytime soon... Cost, politics and the length of time 'public consultations / enquiries' take, would totally finish the idea off...

Can you please explain how this can make life easier for passengers?

In case you hadn't notice Scotland has a disability - it's called the excuse-of-a-motorway M8 and has to go through the hellhole that is the Glasgow Kingston Bridge.

Building a new airport 30 miles from Glasgow helps no one except the construction industry hired to build it.

People on the East Side of Glasgow are already using Edinburgh as it can have a more predictable travel time than crossing the M8. Those of us West of Glasgow and in Ayrshire (excusing Prestwick for the moment as it only does budget) would hugely suffer from such a move.

[CaptJ]

Seat 62K

Why is Mirabel a bad example? Does seem to have reasonable relevance to the current discussion. I remember using it just after it was opened.
How about Narita for another example. New airport, never fufilled it's potential while the airport it was designed to replace has recently been expanded.

"Moving" Heathrow would be the death of the high tech industries in the Thames corridor from Slough to Newbury. It is never going to happen.

As for extra capacity it is likely that we are never going to need it. Why? The price of oil will put an end to the need for Airport expansion, that's why.

There was a window of opportunity to replace Heathrow 30 years ago and it was lost. It will never be resurrected. Despite the confused mutterings of a deranged blond twit. Boy, but the people of London are going to reap what they sowed there!

Boris can't even find the money to fund Crossrail how can he fund an airport that NEEDS new transport links to make it work, of which crossrail is only one?

[bcn_boy]

Having lived down the road from LHR for many years this arguement over a third runway has been runnign for a long time and all local communites are against it. However, one thing that rarely gets a mention is the rebuilding of the runways to run from North to South. Also there is much space for another north south runway to the West of T5 if they did that. North/south take off and landing patterns would remove the flight paths from over the vast majority of London. Am not sure our Royal Family would appreciate having a runway in their back yard at windsor but then again neither to millions of west londoners. Is there any viable reason why this has not been considered?

[LHR27C]

2019. Which isnt disimilar to runway 3 at LHR

Yes it is. LHR could, theoretically, be given government approval for a 3rd runway tomorrow. LGW has a longstanding agreement which forbids expansion for another 11 years. The two are not remotely similar.

given that Gatwick Airport is surrounded by green fields in all directions

LGW has a large town to the south, residential areas to the north, and a motorway to the east. I agree that putting another runway in there, post-2019, would be easier than LHR but no doubt it would still encounter a huge amount of anti-expansion protests.

[HZ123]

I cannot agree that a third runway will see the likes of Jersey, regional airport routes back at LHR. If it was feasable there would be far less narrowbody a/c than there are at the moment and why the F50 KLM is allowed in / out I cannot understand. It surely must be a loss leader. LHR and its surroundings are and have been at a standstill during the peak rush hours since the 70's. Its time for a lot of us to start thinking outside the box and to consider exactly what the state of aviation will be like in 10 / 20 years. There might be no requirement for any improvements as the UK might be bankrupt by then anyway and surely other countrys services will enable transfer pax to miss out the UK. I fail to see that we actually earn anything from them and once the airlines start paying the proper price for fuel that to will make a difference.

[skyman771]

Why can't he just think about the amount of people who will loose Jobs and how hard it will be for those who mostly live Near Heathrow to travel across not just one side of London but that and Kent.
When I read response such as this it is little wonder that nothing ever gets done. Heathrow has unfortunately outgrown the site it occupies, not only that but excepting T5 (and to a lesser extent T4) then the place is a complete mess both on pax & airside which ever way one looks at it. Other than on historical reasoning and that greater opposition to expansion exists elsewhere, then the place should have been run down years ago. But politics go on & no one has had the bottle / power to take on the task ! Those that have 'head in the cloud' mentalities making statements such as that above do no one any good, and to every such argument there is on a human basis an equal & opposite argument against expansion. Basically the place is now land locked and there really is no practical & convenient solution. From a safety side mercifully there have been no major accidents, but is the place really much more safe than say Congohas ? On taking your heads out of the sand and taking a trip around Europe to say AMS,CDG, MAD to name but three and each one makes LHR central area seem like a cess pit. All have large sites located sufficiently far away from the major population centres and are a lesson to be learned from. Maplin was rejected too many years ago to remember and everyone has an opinion on STN expansion, so what now. Well I guess guys you all need to take a reality check & hope that the govt. has the bottle to build at a new remote site perhaps using the redundant labour force after the 'Olympic site construction folly' has run it's course. Failing this all you locals & LHR commuters will in any event find your jobs under threat when it finally dawns on airlines & pax alike that perhaps LHR is not actually worth bothering with.

[Seat62K]

CaptJ,

You ask why I think Montreal is a poor comparison. Montreal is not one of the small number of "world cities" and for many years the local economy was stagnant with major financial services companies moving away (to Bay Street in particular) as a result of the Quebec language laws. The local geography - especially the fact that Montreal is on an island - militated against Mirabel's success. Affluent residents in West Island communities such as Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue and those living farther west in places like Hudson and St-Lazare found getting to Mirabel a pain in the neck, especially in bad winter weather.

[WHBM]

You ask why I think Montreal is a poor comparison. Montreal is not one of the small number of "world cities" and for many years the local economy was stagnant with major financial services companies moving awayI wonder how much this was influenced by carriers preferring Toronto to Montreal in the first place. All the international flights into Toronto could offer connections to the rest of Canada. Any flights into Mirabel - nothing. Don't forget that Montreal was, pre-Mirabel the pre-eminent Canadian air hub. After Mirabel it lost it. I notice now everybody is back at Dorval/Trudeau it seems to be regaining lost ground again.


Affluent residents in West Island communities such as Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue and those living farther west in places like Hudson and St-Lazare found getting to Mirabel a pain in the neck, especially in bad winter weather.Isn't this EXACTLY what all the heavy premium-class users who live in the Thames Valley and west of London (precisely because they are near Heathrow) would think about an airport halfway to Dover like the one proposed here.

How long do you think it would take to get to the new airport from say Maidenhead on a Friday afternoon ? I'd give about 4 hours. Maidenhead to Exeter might be quicker.

[tristar500]

Nebpor

All things being equal, heres why... :ugh:

ONE CENTRAL AIRPORT - with airlines concentrating on one site, not 2 as currently is the case GLA and EDI. Cost savings to the airlines = cost savings to the passengers in a general sense.

GLA - Hampered by the available surrounding land and motorway at one end, and river at the other, not to mention the 'sinking runway' which has to be sorted yearly.

EDI - Hampered by general road access. Railwayline at one end and motorway at the other.

There is a motorway called the M9 currently running right past the proposed site. It would need upgraded obviously... This runs from Newbridge in Edinburgh right up to Stirling. The M8 from GLA terminates at Newbridge and joins into the M9... There is also access from GLA to the Falkirk area along the M80 / A80 which would again probably need upgrading, but is available. In fact Newbridge in EDI and the beloved Kingston Bridge in GLA are pure nightmares during rush hour, and the Kingston is a nightmare most of the time - any time...

Cant see your point really... Any new-build aiport or extended airport requires the infrastructure surrounding it to be upgraded too. Any cost-saving in terms of ''one airport in the middle'' (lets face it, the width of Central Scotland is hardly a factor...) is a benefit - any day of the week.

PIK isnt in the frame. Its available now, with ample runway capacity and terminal capacity but sadly isnt favoured by the majors, and only FR in all reality make proper use of it.

''30 miles approx from GLA'' and 25 miles approx from EDI... Do you think the people that live in the east end of London, enjoy having to make their the way out to LHR, whether by car, bus train or tube... when going on trips that determine LHR as their departure point... I think not and its a damn site longer and more complicated for them, as it would be for passengers travelling from EDI or GLA to a new central airport in Scotland.

Cost, choice and frequency of flights is what its all about. Iam sure BA, bmi, flybe etc etc would welcome with open arms 1 single airport. All the airlines could streamline their operations and offer better and more efficient services.
FACT, Simple economies of scale...

Suggest you buy shares in the construction industry if thats the only way you think you might make a fast buck... Will need major infrastructure improvements all round so get in there quick!

[Gonzo]

HZ123,

and why the F50 KLM is allowed in / out I cannot understand.

Not quite sure what you mean here....KLM have got the slots, and they choose to use F50s flying to Eindhoven and Rotterdam in those slots. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

[Skipness One Echo]

Cost, choice and frequency of flights is what its all about. Iam sure BA, bmi, flybe etc etc would welcome with open arms 1 single airport. All the airlines could streamline their operations and offer better and more efficient services.
FACT, Simple economies of scale...

One could make the same argument about London City and Heathrow being combined except City serves the local business population. Having to go twice as far from both Edinburgh and Glasgow to this airport than we do right now is remniscent of 1970s central planning. The people of Glasgow have an airport, as do the people of Edinburgh. I frequently use both and they work quite well. Grandiose schemes of a hub airport in the middle of nowehere with amazing transport links to everywhere.......? I mean come on. Have you ever visited the UK after 10 years of the Nanny Party in power?

[CaptJ]

It is difficult to detect a shred of logic in the arguments espoused here for a Heathrow replacement. I'm not a particular fan of LHR having suffered the kind of misery that Heathrow does so well only last Thurs!

I'm familiar with all of the epitomes of airport delight that are frequently espoused here, MAD, AMS, CDG. I don't rate any of them as overall significantly better than Heathrow so as to make me want to go there. esp CDG! ok it's got 4 runways and the iconic terminal 1, but what else? It is a mess, difficult to get around and few facilities.

With Heathrow we have to be realistic as to what can be achieved.
a. We can't afford a new airport
b. We can't afford the transport links a new airport would need.
c. The Thames valley area needs an airport close by.

So Heathrow isn't going away anytime soon.
What to do then?
The sooner the wrecking ball is unleashed on T2 the better. Can I do it? Please?
Third runway? I'll pass on that one.
Second runway at Gatwick? More sensible than a third at LHR.

Lets get the Heathrow sorted asap

[Seat62K]

WHBM,

I don't think Montreal's loss of aviation pre-eminence in eastern Canada is directly related to Mirabel's opening, tempting as it might be to see a causal link. Its heyday had, I believe, more to do with the fact that it was the financial capital of Canada, a position it has since ceded to Toronto. I also think the ICAO headquarters may have had something to do with so many intercontinental flights choosing Montreal over Toronto.

Montreal never needed another airport, unlike London. Powerful city notables had big dreams (Expo, the Olympic games, a "CDG-style" airport). These were seen as expressions of "national" ambition (by "nation" I mean Quebec not Canada!). In Europe, Barcelona is similar, only more successful. Sending intercontinental traffic to Mirabel only exacerbated existing problems by discouraging connecting traffic.

Returning to London, I think that the days of its pre-eminence might be numbered, not least because of transportation problems (not just its airports, but also the tube, roads and trains). I wouldn't be surprised if there's a drift away to European cities which seem more attractive. Of course, I could be wrong. Just look at New York - similar transportation problems, high cost of living etc. yet still very much the "world city". Perhaps that's it: world cities prosper despite themselves!

[jabird]

Tristar,

"Cost, choice and frequency of flights is what its all about. Iam sure BA, bmi, flybe etc etc would welcome with open arms 1 single airport."

Have you tried asking them? Just when they are crying out for the BAA monopoly to be breaking up, the LAST thing they would want is for 4 central Scottish airports to merge into one super airport!

[ORAC]

The Times: Third runway at Heathrow ‘is a done deal’ - even though public consultation goes on (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article4806137.ece)

Ministers are pressing ahead with plans for a highly controversial third runway at Heathrow and intend to approve the expansion before Christmas, The Times has learnt. Although the Government is still sifting through tens of thousands of public submissions on the airport’s proposed expansion, it is understood that senior figures have already decided to sanction it.

Transport sources told The Times that the Government was determined to make the third runway happen, despite widespread opposition from the environmental lobby and the possibility of an independent review delaying the project.................

[HeathrowAirport]

Would a third runway and Terminal 6 not increase capacity too about 900,000? If 24 hours Ops happen?

3 x an average runway use of 40 ATM, = 120 per hour x by 24 = 2880 average movements per day. 1,051,200 a Year according to an average of 40 movements per hour.. Obviously this would not happen but that's life.Making it the busiest airport in the world. Look at Atlanta. 5 Runways over 900,000 movements annualy.

At the moment if it was 24 hours OPS they could handle 40 x 2 = 80 x 24 = 1920 flights a day. From the current 1250 rite? = 700,080 rite?

Regards,

R..

[manintheback]

24 hour ops over London - never going to happen.

Labour will approve the 3rd runway (they need all the plus points rom business they can get at the moment) but it will only get pulled after the next election.

LHR could, theoretically, be given government approval for a 3rd runway tomorrow. LGW has a longstanding agreement which forbids expansion for another 11 years. The two are not remotely similar.

2nd runway from Gastwick can operate from 2019, planned opening date of runway 3 at LHR is 2019/2020 - more or less the same


LGW has a large town to the south, residential areas to the north, and a motorway to the east. I agree that putting another runway in there, post-2019, would be easier than LHR but no doubt it would still encounter a huge amount of anti-expansion protests.

Crawley is a couple of miles to the south but runways are East West. Going north you could go 12 miles up the M23 and over the M25 before you land on someones house - make a heck of a single runway. I would suspect looking at a map 3 additional runways E/w could be put down and at least 1 N/South and barely touch anyones property and not overfly crowded areas anything like the same extent now.

Wont the need for expansion be rendered academic anyway if the era of cheap flight is over?

[Curious Pax]

Landing the Glasgow shuttle on a short runway at Northolt and then making a five mile connection isn't going to win you high yield business passengers.

Schiphol seem to have got away with it!!

[Skipness One Echo]

Schiphol seem to have got away with it!!

Oh very good point!Actually I have taxied a few times along the LONG journey to and from the Terminal at AMS and it's not actually that bad. How far is it I wonder? Northolt I think, is actually noticeably further though? Anyone know?

[Xeque]

Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo
Landing the Glasgow shuttle on a short runway at Northolt and then making a five mile connection isn't going to win you high yield business passengers.
Last time I tried it, getting from T4 to either T1,2 or 3 took something like 30 minutes - bus or underground. How long does it take to get to any other terminal from T5?
Think about the aircraft taxiing time (and associated waste of fuel) that's going to be involved by adding a third runway to the north of the existing ones.
As for the computer nerds in the M4 corridor (CaptJ's post) - they are already using Farnborough to great advantage.

[nebpor]

Tristar,

"Cost, choice and frequency of flights is what its all about. Iam sure BA, bmi, flybe etc etc would welcome with open arms 1 single airport. All the airlines could streamline their operations and offer better and more efficient services.
FACT, Simple economies of scale...

Suggest you buy shares in the construction industry if thats the only way you think you might make a fast buck... Will need major infrastructure improvements all round so get in there quick!"

I'm sure there will be many cost efficiencies for the airlines, leading to a £2 reduction per passenger fair, but I think the extra effort involved for a large percentage of the population in getting to your new wonder airport would far outweigh any air ticket savings.

Do you think petrol is free? Rail travel?

Where do the funds to widen the M80/90 etc all come from if not the public purse?

It's people like me who are :ugh: at folk like you it seems - drop your silly attitude on here.

For the record I take about 50 flights per year and so do the other 100 people I work with, all based across Central Scotland and all happy we've got a good choice of airport right now. I'll take that above more direct flights to Europe that a single airport might support anyday.

I'll also point out one of my good friends was an architect student, who in his final year conducted a wholesale study into something very similar to what you are talking about - as I helped review his work for him I saw the passenger figures, volumes, transport information and everything else - I'm not just writing this because I'm throwing stones at your argument, I'm writing it as I'm a professional consultant who makes decisions and recommendations on the available facts .... and the facts seem to indicate that a central airport isn't benefitting anybody here except maybe business - and I care more about the public, being a member of it.

[Curious Pax]

Oh very good point!Actually I have taxied a few times along the LONG journey to and from the Terminal at AMS and it's not actually that bad. How far is it I wonder? Northolt I think, is actually noticeably further though? Anyone know?

Looking at Google Maps as the crow flies I would say 5 miles from Northolt to LHR as you say, and 2.5 miles from 36L/18R to the main terminal area at Schiphol.

As I understand it the idea of using Northolt is for a separate terminal/runway, with a fast transport of some sort to shift passengers to the existing LHR terminals. Maybe a better solution would be a taxiway between the 2 (a la Schiphol) - would that be any more environmentally disruptive than the proposed 3rd runway? In order to generate more terminal space in the main area, the maintenance areas could be moved out to Northolt, and a new terminal 6, a mirror image of terminal 5, built on the site of the current maintenance area.

Northolt would then just provide a runway/maintenance area whilst the current LHR site would contain 2 runways and all the passenger terminals. Built with sufficient speed (like that will happen!) a T4/5/6 could be large enough to allow the complete closure of T1/2/3 for demolition. Extra remote terminal capacity could then be added like Atlanta, with parallel midfield terminals all the way between T5 and T6.

[Xeque]

Thanks for your response. The idea of moving the maintenance areas to Northolt would not work. The runway is only 5,500 ft long and as such could not accommodate A330/B777 or larger.
Northolt's primary importance would be to move all smaller aircraft movements from Heathrow in order to create more landing and take-off slots for larger aircraft there.
All B737, A319/320, MD80, Dash 8, ATR etc etc movements could be shifted to Northolt.
A taxyway between the two airports isn't really practical. Much better to move the passengers (themselves) quickly via a dedicated underground link.
But overall I am happy that someone read my post and thought about it. Thank you. :):ok:

[Skipness One Echo]

Yes we should move all those pesky DHC8s and ATR42s to Northolt.
Xeque you make a few good points but your certainty is undermined by your obvious unfamiliarity with the subject matter....

Last time I tried it, getting from T4 to either T1,2 or 3 took something like 30 minutes - bus or underground. How long does it take to get to any other terminal from T5?

On this point on T5, it shouldn't happen a lot, if you are on a codeshare you go through Flight Connections not the Heathrow Express or the Piccadilly Line.
I appreciate that a lot of you guys outside the capital quite sensibly use AMS / CDG / FRA. As a London resident however, I all too aware that even if LHR lost the entire connectivity to the rest of the UK it still needs a third runwy and a lot of TLC even just serving London ! Cameron will see sense when he takes up the real responsibility of office I hope.

[aeroDellboy]

What's the betting Boris's feasibility study decides that the idea of relocating is impractical, therefore giving the green light to the third runway. Just another political stunt.

I have taken to using the train rather than going through LHR recently, it's quicker and easier....

For long haul I always use Schipol anyway.

[ArtfulDodger]

I say that Boris better be kidding about all of this nonsense, considering the money and efforts we're currently expending to shuffle 52 out of 80 airlines around the CTA and T4 at Heathrow.

We're 10 months into the Central Terminal Area rebuild and there's a long way to go yet, the T2 demolition has been put back a year and HET is yet to even break ground.

The services gantry erected outside of T2 and the QB (Queens Building) has already cost as much as Boris' election campaign. That's going to carry allthe power, fluids and data around the demolition when it starts.

This is all without the cost of the gate reworking as well.

... and then he's gonna move it down the river eh . . . methinks not !!

AD

[LHR27C]

2nd runway from Gastwick can operate from 2019, planned opening date of runway 3 at LHR is 2019/2020 - more or less the same

Sources for both please? I don't know the details of the LGW agreement but I really don't believe it would allow BAA/potential new owner to be busy building a runway and extra infrastructure for several years at LGW while the agreement was still in place prohiting just such expansion. And if it did - why are they not busy campaigning for a second runway at LGW now, instead of pursuing one at STN and making no mention of anything at LGW?

Also not convinced a new runway at LHR would take 12 years to build.

The fact remains it's much more more straightforward to expand LHR from a legality point of view. And also more sensible. LGW is not, at present, quite as congested as LHR, it has a backup runway to move onto when things go pear-shaped, and all signs are that many of its higher yielding airlines would be much happier moving their services up the road to LHR - such as CO recently pulling out of LGW altogether and buying more LHR slots.

For long haul I always use Schipol anyway.

Give T5 a shot, IMO a better airport experience than AMS, and indeed any other major European airport with the possible exception of MAD.

Maybe a better solution would be a taxiway between the 2

Sorry, but this whole Northolt idea, and in particular this suggestion, is just utterly ridiculous! The amount of housing, motorways,etc that you'd tear up to and general disruption caused to create some 5-mile long taxiway between the 2 airports would make LHR's 3rd runway look like nothing! Northolt is an important military airfield with a very short runway and heavily constrained movements due to nearby LHR anyway.

Think about the aircraft taxiing time (and associated waste of fuel) that's going to be involved by adding a third runway to the north of the existing ones.

You're shooting yourself in the foot. One of the key benefits of LHR's 3rd runway would be an enormous reduction in airborne and ground holding time, the benefits of which would far outweight any additional fuel penalties from increased taxiing time - not that I think there would be any. A 3rd runway would probably be accompanied by a 6th terminal to the north of the existing site as well, to serve it.

[Skipness One Echo]

We're 10 months into the Central Terminal Area rebuild and there's a long way to go yet, the T2 demolition has been put back a year and HET is yet to even break ground.

The services gantry erected outside of T2 and the QB (Queens Building) has already cost as much as Boris' election campaign. That's going to carry allthe power, fluids and data around the demolition when it starts.

I wondered what that gantry thingy was for. Do we have a final closure date for Terninal 2 yet? Was through on Sat going to CDG and got a bit nostalgic.....though not a patch on T5 it is a piece of history that has been used into the ground alas.

Can anyone advise what the WIP is between the Europier and Pier 3? Is the structure going up part of Heathrow East and so Apron L PWFU?

[manintheback]

Well the Times article that claimed Ruth Kelly would shortly announce the go-ahead for Runway 3 was clearly rubbish.

[heli_port]

Ministers are pressing ahead with plans for a highly controversial third runway at Heathrow and intend to approve the expansion before Christmas, The Times has learnt. Although the Government is still sifting through tens of thousands of public submissions on the airport’s proposed expansion, it is understood that senior figures have already decided to sanction it.


Third runway at Heathrow ‘is a done deal’ - even though public consultation goes on - Times Online (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article4806137.ece)

[Rainboe]

Good heavens! It's only taken them about 20 years to do the right thing then. Allow another 10 years for planning enquiries, and we might even double the T5 gestation period.

Meanwhile, traffic will be moving to the vastly better non-BAA airports across the channel. Too little, too late.

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

During a major construction project, it is easy for mistakes to be made. Could we have a volunteer in the engineering company to turn the plans upside down, and bulldoze Stanwell to build the new runway to the South instead?
That way, when they spot the error, we can then go back to the original Northside position, and have 4 runways.

[northeast canuck]

From the article:

However The Times understands that Ruth Kelly, the Transport Secretary, strongly supports the proposal and is likely to make the announcement in its favour as early as November.

No, she's not!

[scudpilot]

why waste all that money on a new runway when the airport is gonna be closed and moved anyway (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/3042291/Boris-Johnsons-island-plan-unrealistic.html)? :)

[BikerMark]

It's rumoured that Boris was shown the Blondie album cover "Parallel Lines" and thought it was a jolly good airport plan.

[Guest 112233]

Na - He was listening to REM's "You can't Get there fom here" Track at the time. Its the one after "Its the End of the World as we know it." - "and I feel fine "

CAT III (Automatic for the PPRUNE.)

[rubik101]

A 3rd runway at LHR will not happen in our lifetimes.
Where will the money come from?
BAA/Ferrovial......I think not; The bankrupt Labour government, never...
Save your breath and discuss reality, not fantasies.

[scudpilot]

theres a bunch of irish lads doing a driveway just round the corner from me...looks like they have nearly finished and and will be looking for work soon... I am sure they could do a really cheap deal....:ok:

[Will Hung]

and bulldoze Stanwell to build the new runway

The Bulldozer would get stolen ! Have you ever been to stanwell ?

[TyroPicard]

Harry and Paul could build it in an afternoon....
A far better idea is to have four runways at Stansted, sell off LHR for squillions, and have peace and quiet in the skies over London.

[ArtfulDodger]

Do we have a final closure date for Terninal 2 yet?


Skipness One Echo, we're currently working to a closure of LHR T2 this time next year, but we think that's gonna move again.

AD

[LHR27C]

A 3rd runway at LHR will not happen in our lifetimes.
Where will the money come from?
BAA/Ferrovial......I think not; The bankrupt Labour government, never...
Save your breath and discuss reality, not fantasies.

:rolleyes: Do you really think BAA would be campaigning so hard, and the government investing so much time in a public consultation for a 3rd runway at LHR if, as soon as it was given the go-ahead, they turned round and said sorry we can't afford it?

[manintheback]

Economics have changed quite dramatically in the last 18 months
BAA certainly couldnt afford it, Government borrowing is out of control, PFI is discredited. Some major expenditure cuts are going to be needed and when someone gets up and says - 'We cant be shutting hospitals to build a runway' go figure what might happen.

[Walnut]

Knocking down 700+ houses in a Labour constituency is also not going to be very popular in the current political climate. I have a hunch that Ruth Kellys resignation today as transport minister is in some way conected??

[Hyperborean]

How about; sell Gatwick, invest the proceeds into 3rd runway, oppose planning for 2nd runway at Gatwick and so outcompete the competition the politicians seem so keen on?

[Michael SWS]

Good heavens! It's only taken them about 20 years to do the right thing then. Allow another 10 years for planning enquiries, and we might even double the T5 gestation period.

Meanwhile, traffic will be moving to the vastly better non-BAA airports across the channel. Too little, too late.Why would it be such a bad thing for traffic to move across the channel? Let Schiphol and Frankfurt deal with the noise and pollution; the last thing we in London need is yet more countryside disappearing beneath tonnes of concrete and tarmac. It's time to move the focus onto the quality of our airports, not the size.

[hatters united]

michael SWS,

"You are the weakest link" - Good bye :{

[hangten]

Why would it be such a bad thing for traffic to move across the channel? Let Schiphol and Frankfurt deal with the noise and pollution;

And the millions of people associated with it. And the billions of pounds they bring through the UK every year. Sigh.

I have a hunch that Ruth Kellys resignation today as transport minister is in some way conected??

I had not made that connection until I read that. Potentially an excellent point, but I doubt we'll ever know...

How about; sell Gatwick, invest the proceeds into 3rd runway, oppose planning for 2nd runway at Gatwick and so outcompete the competition the politicians seem so keen on?

Although, it's my understanding that the contractual agreement that West Sussex/Mid Sussex District Councils hold with Gatwick regarding no development of a second runway there is with BAA - and would therefore be null and void in the event of a sale, removing a very large blocker to Gatwick's expansion. I'm ready to be shown to be incorrect though as I have no definitive proof that this is so.

[British Grenadier]

Close it , but let me retire first !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :ok:

[Diedtrying]

Why would it be such a bad thing for traffic to move across the channel? Let Schiphol and Frankfurt deal with the noise and pollution; the last thing we in London need is yet more countryside disappearing beneath tonnes of concrete and tarmac. It's time to move the focus onto the quality of our airports, not the size.:D Hell ye lets get rid of Heathrows 72000 direct jobs and over 100000 more jobs in it's ancillary industries.

28 International companies have there head quarters here in London, all require an international hub, 2007 stock exchange turnover was $9.14 Trillion, it's nearest European competitor was Frankfurt whose turnover was $3.64 Trillion. I haven't even gone into the freight figures. Whether you like it or not if we were to scale down Heathrow and chase the competition to Europe we would suffer economically.

[ArtfulDodger]

I'm with you Diedtrying.

At the same time, let's get the boys at McAlpine to run the 3rd runway right next to the M4, make a link road that I can then drive down taking me into my new office under Europier . . . . .

[rubik101]

LHR27C, as you are obviously advocating a centre rinway at LHR, the answer to your question is, Yes.
It is purely political. The money is not there and nor will it be in the forseeable future. Just where do you think they will raise the £20 billion it will cost?
Would you lend money to Gordon Brown or Alistair Darling or Ferrovial and hope to get it back in the next ten years?
No, I thought not.
Forget the whole expensive waste of time and money.

[manintheback]

Although, it's my understanding that the contractual agreement that West Sussex/Mid Sussex District Councils hold with Gatwick regarding no development of a second runway there is with BAA - and would therefore be null and void in the event of a sale,


Absolutely correct on the first part. The 1979 agreement is between the airport owners and the council. Not sure about whether or not that agreement has to transfer as part of a sale, but the government can overturn and build any time they like. They make the rules.

[jabird]

"Quote:
I have a hunch that Ruth Kellys resignation today as transport minister is in some way conected??

I had not made that connection until I read that. Potentially an excellent point, but I doubt we'll ever know..."

Speculation in press is that she wanted to go as far back as May. The above article is highly speculative too, but for once might I suggest that this link isn't that strong?

manintheback,

Wasn't this agreement in the form of a pre-cursor to a Section 106 agreement, in which case it relates to the approval for the North Terminal, and is therefore applicable to whoever owns the airport. There was a big fuss over this deal with the 2003 White Paper, but afaik, current government policy still favours runways @ LHR & STN, not LGW. Of course, Parliament can change that, but I don't see either the current lot or the next lot doing so.

[Bagso]

...you can add as many runways as you like in the South East, LHR, LGW even STN but the real problem is airspace or lack of !!!!!!!:ugh:

[tristar500]

Nebpor... Dear oh dear...

What really is your point. Ok, you might have JUST managed to aquire a GOLD Card from Birdseed Airways (via the company paying for it...), but come on, ONE AIRPORT, fully serviced and catering for the Central Belt of Scotland... IT ISNT A BAD IDEA.

Its 'people' like you, who are pigeon-holed in thinking what we have currently will suffice for ever and a day...

ONE, yes... ONE single airport with International status - For Scotland.

YES - There would need to be massive investment all round with excellent transport links - local authorities as well as the Scottish Govt and possibly private investors would need to dig deep, but without investment, Scotland will and IS falling behind.

MAN has a second runway. Do you really think Scotland is currently competing - I think NOT. We cant. We dont have the facilities at any of our 3!!! airports in the central belt..........................

Having said my piece yet again, a single airport will never happen. My point is that it wouldnt be such a bad idea if it did happen...

Nebpor, chill and just TRY to take on my point... I do take yours... :ok:

[nebpor]

Glad you have a sense of humour as well - it didn't come out in your previous reply to me :E

I totally take on board what having a single airport could offer in terms of international links etc .... but I still maintain that the actual buggery of just GETTING there would prove extremely difficult to a significant proportion of the passengers - we are "blessed" with a crappy little transport corridor up here ... I mean who the hell needs a satnav in dear old Ecosse? There's only ever one route anywhere and it's busted at the seams virtually constantly :(

Anyway, tis the joy of Internet arguments ... plus the investment you're talking about seems, sadly, fanciful in this day and age - we can barely get property developers to spend a penny outside of Edinburgh (unlike with Manchester for example, where cash pours into the area), never mind spend the amount of infrastructure that would be required....

Take it easy :ok:

[manintheback]

Now cancelled by the Tories.

[Torquelink]

Now cancelled by the Tories Vote winner or vote loser?

[indie cent]

BBC NEWS | Politics | Tories would scrap Heathrow plans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7641094.stm)

the Isle of Boris...?

[WHBM]

Conservative Party transport speaker doesn't appear to have a clue.

Firstly any new rail line the length of the country, starting to design it today, is on past form going to take 20-30 years to realise whereas the gross congestion at Heathrow is now.

Secondly there will be extreme opposition to it in all the areas it will pass through - which are by and large good Conservative-voting areas. So the Conservatives will never, ever approve it.

Thirdly the markets served by a rail service from Central London to Central Manchester, and an air service from Heathrow to Ringway, are quite different.

a) Many of the passengers are connecting at Heathrow and would certainly not welcome being forced to take the HEx to Paddington, then somehow get with all their bags to St Pancras, then go to Manchester.

b) Those who are not connecting are by and large those for whom the air service is more convenient than the train. If you live in the Thames Valley for example. Just try and take the train from there to Manchester for the day if you live there.

c) Other transport issues have already impacted on the rail service from London to Birmingham and Manchester. These have for a long time stopped at Watford Junction to pick up passengers from the Home Counties but the railway has noticed such a reduction in demand that they have reduced Watford stops significantly. A main part of this was attributed to gross peak hour congestion on the M25 for those driving from home, which has led to such unrelability of journey times that passengers were consistently missing trains, and have abandoned the train for road/air alternatives.

Fourthly the domestic flights at Heathrow are not the principal source of congestion there, they have been reduced substantially over the years, and the operators would doubtless like to get rid of them as unprofitable were it not for their direct feeder to Heathrow function. The demand at Heathrow is for international flights; look how the day they were permitted to do so all the US carriers walked out of Gatwick and across to Heathrow. Also demonstrated, inevitably, by the BBC TV footage this morning, which used as its main backdrop a Turkish Airlines 737 landing (doubtless after 20 minutes round the stack at Biggin). Quite how the new train route will handle passengers from Istanbul was not explained.

[lexoncd]

There is surplus capacity at all regional airports and adding a third runway to heathrow amd assuming all North of Watford will connect by train to Euston then accross to Paddington ......yeah right...

The simple fact is that London Airways aka British Airways want this but the Nation doesn't.....Witness the growth of many other airlines that don't operate there.....

[wobble2plank]

Nah, it's easy to add a third runway to Heathrow, don't even need to bulldoze a village.

Convert Northolt into a SH terminal, extend the runway a bit and add a high speed underground passenger and baggage link to Heathrow. Link will be cheaper than a new runway, airspace is there and the runway is far enough away to allow full parallel approaches. Couple of hangars for the night stoppers and some off pier parking and Bob's yer uncle. PS, right next to the A4 so the road infrastructure is there already!

Bloody politicians, never think outside of the box :}

[Michael SWS]

PS, right next to the A4 so the road infrastructure is there already!There is also significant residential development around Northolt and its approaches.

The last thing we need is more capacity at Heathrow, and I will even vote Conservative if they promise in their manifesto not to allow it. After all, they're likely to be in power for 8 years or more, which will effectively push any new runway back to 2030.

[Gonzo]

and the runway is far enough away to allow full parallel approaches.

Err, no it isn't.

[Carnage Matey!]

The simple fact is that London Airways aka British Airways want this but the Nation doesn't.....Witness the growth of many other airlines that don't operate there.....

And how many of these other airlines don't operate to LHR?

[wobble2plank]

Gonzo, Err, no it isn't.

So we couldn't have LH approaches to 27R and SH approaches to 25 (or 27 if it was dug up and relaid)? Pray tell why not? Oddly enough I've been in and out of Northolt many, many times in a Jetstream in my past life and didn't seem to suffer from any vortex snags from LHR and the controllers were quite happy for me to blunder in on my PAR!

AN-Conf/11-IP/3
Appendix A-12

2.2.1.1 Independent parallel approaches may be conducted to parallel runways provided that:

3) where runway centre lines are spaced by 1 525 m or more, suitable surveillance
radar with a minimum azimuth accuracy of 0.3 degrees (one sigma) or better and
update period of 5 seconds or less is available;

Not unfeasible in todays technological wonder world.

Ironically, as long as structures exist to stop the BAA cramming an extended Heathrow to the gills again, a third runway will benefit all airlines at LHR. The airborne holding times, burning all that nasty kerosene stuff, would be reduced, LH would have the two long runways to themselves reducing the holding times on the ground. Everyone delights in kicking Heathrow until a proposal is given to fix it, then we can give that a good kicking as well. Oh, and don't buy a house next to an airport and then moan about it, the airports have been there a bloody long time.

Quick, find the next band wagon.....

:\

[Manchester Kurt]

Seems the Tories would bin the 3rd runway, even if construction has already started when they get to power...

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Tories would scrap Heathrow plan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7641094.stm)

[Gonzo]

Wobble, yes, we could....but easterlies?

[indie cent]

Even the Telegraph seems confused on this:

Tories are right to think green on Heathrow - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/09/29/dl2903.xml)

earlier:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/patrick__hennessy_/blog/2008/09/29/what_have_the_tories_got_against_heathrow

Personally, I think our politicians collectively are going to screw our transport for the next 25 years, again.

Build the runway and the rail link, citing National interest. To suggest they are mutually exclusive is specious. Whilst we're at it, best we crack on with the new nuclear power generators before the lights go out.

Watching the mess the present lot have made unfold, it's all futile anyway.

This may prove helpful:

Moving Abroad With Ease at Emigration Expert (UK) (http://www.emigrationexpert.co.uk/)

[beamender99]

All jolly well thought out.

Trains of course do not disturb anyone.


Shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said the party wanted to cut more than 66,000 flights a year at the west London airport.
Rather than building a third runway, they would install an entirely new railway line running at speeds of up to 180mph between St Pancras, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.
It is hoped that the new line would encourage travellers to take the train rather than fly.
As well as reducing demand for domestic flights the Conservatives believe it would entice people to use the Eurostar, now based at St Pancras, to get to Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam.
It would also allow more commuter journeys between smaller towns on the West Coast Mainline.
Miss Villiers told The Guardian: "This is a seriously green decision.
"A few years ago it would have been inconceivable for the leader of the Conservative Party to say 'no' to a third runway and putting the brakes on Heathrow expansion."
The announcement on Monday, the second day of the Tory conference in Birmingham, is designed to show that the party has not abandoned its "Vote Blue, Go Green" agenda in difficult economic times.
The Conservatives would spend £15.6 billion between 2015 and 2027, around £1.3 billion a year for 12 years, to build the new high speed rail link. A further £4.4 billion would be paid by the private sector.



And will be replaced by bigger noisier longhaul A/C ?

It is assumed this plan will ease LHR traffic? Dream on.

Nowt will happen for at least 8-20 years so Labour will be back and so will the third runway plan.

[Carnage Matey!]

Maybe we should just be honest with ourselves and recognise that no UK government is going to be in power for more than a dozen years so none of them will commit to a project which will only pay dividends after they've left office. They'll continue with a piecemeal transport policy which relies on tweaking small capacity improvements out of the inadequate existing airports, roads and rail lines rather than take the hard, unpopular but correct decision to replace whole chunks of the system. This will then all be hidden behind some green excuse whilst the reality is that cost and NIMBYism will stimy Britains progress.

[LHR27C]

WHBM - excellent post - the Tories are just jumping on the vote-grabbing bandwagon and haven't thought it through at all. The only thing I'd add is by cutting out domestic flights you are also unfairly disadvantaging an airline like BA that relies on feed from connecting passengers.

No doubt if/when the Tories get elected they will rather rapidly back LHR's 3rd runway with the huge pressure from businesses.

Convert Northolt into a SH terminalThis is never going to work for a myriad of reasons. The runway is far too short, Northolt is surrounded by residential areas making any form of expansion very unfeasible, it is restricted and already congested, various ATC restrictions unless runways were realigned and the whole idea of a "connecting flight" that involve changing terminals located at different airports via some rail link.

There is surplus capacity at all regional airports and adding a third runway to heathrow amd assuming all North of Watford will connect by train to Euston then accross to Paddington ......yeah right...

The simple fact is that London Airways aka British Airways want this but the Nation doesn't.....Witness the growth of many other airlines that don't operate there.....So all the people in the catchment that LHR serves are expected to go to a regional airport like MAN that has spare capacity to catch their flight? :rolleyes:

As for the claim that BA are the only people who want it... what?? For a start how about all the other airlines at LHR? What about the thousands of businesses across London and the M4 corridor?

I take it you have a chip on your shoulder that BA don't serve the regions as much as they used to but that's no need to bash them - they're a highly profitable and successful airline who will operate routes where they can make money. Just be glad MAN got an extra runway when it did and is not so vulnerable to the congestion that LHR is lumbered with.

What is unfair for BA is that with their main hub at LHR they are incredibly vulnerable to any delays. Example: last weekend there was fog at LHR. Not a problem at a place like CDG/AMS, plenty of runways to cope with the increased spacing needed. At LHR that meant a reduced arrivals flow which, as it always does, forced BA as the largest carrier to start cancelling flights.

This problem is entirely down to the fact that LHR's runways are used to maximum capacity and it is not going to go away until another runway is built. Meanwhile its growth has completely stagnated while airports like CDG,MAD etc are experiencing very high growth. - CDG already handles far more movements than LHR and will very probably overtake it on passenger numbers within the next two or three years.

The 3rd runway at LHR is not going to be easy, but it is far and away the only sensible, practical solution to the desperate need for more runway capacity in SE England.

The last thing we need is more capacity at HeathrowI couldn't disagree with you more. The very first thing we need is more capacity at LHR, as anyone with London's economic interests in mind, any airline operating/trying to get a slot there, or anyone who has tried to fly out of there when it gets hit by fog, or high winds, or a runway gets closed, will tell you.

It is purely political. The money is not there and nor will it be in the forseeable future. Just where do you think they will raise the £20 billion it will cost?...Forget the whole expensive waste of time and money. The figure is £13 billion.

The economic benefits of the 3rd runway (and conversely the economic disadvantages to not doing it) to London and the UK as a whole are enormous, and far outweigh the costs of building it. I've no idea how the financing would work but to suggest the government would go through all the consultations and then decide to bin it on account of not being able to afford it, is ludicrous. No doubt BAA and the government have given more than a little thought to how to finance the expansion to be campaigning so hard.

If it's really such an expensive waste of time and money, what's your solution? Leave LHR and build a super new airport in the Thames Estuary? Goodness only knows how much more time and money that would waste before getting rejected, as similar proposals have time and again before it, usually on environmental grounds.

Speculation in press is that she wanted to go as far back as May. The above article is highly speculative too, but for once might I suggest that this link isn't that strong?Agreed. Governmental policy especially in an area like this depends very little on individual ministers.

[Manchester Kurt]

It seems to have been missed that the Tories are proposing that HSR2 would have a spur to Heathrow, as such, it would be possible to get to the airport directly from Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds.

[rutankrd]

Does Heathrow need more runway capacity well the answer is yes of cause it does !
Do we need to utilise other airports around the country without a doubt!
Howerver these are differring issues of debate.

Regards Heathrow why are the considerations based on a reduced length runway.
The investment is needed so do it correctly build a 10,000+ feet strip and do it once ! Oh this is piecemeal Britain forgot!

[StygerTim]

Hi, Manchester Kurt !

I spotted that suggestion, too - and my jaw dropped.

Are the Conservative Party seriously suggesting that building a new Very High Speed Rail track from St Pancras through the house-packed suburbs of London to Heathrow will be acceptable on enviro and economic grounds to the Government, and the people of West London ?

Such a track would make a far larger impact on western London than Runway 3.

Have they ever stood within 200 yards of a VHST going at full speed ?

Or were they assuming that the VHST would trundle along existing tracks, slotting in between local commuter trains and freight services ?

Talk about leaping for a convenient bandwagon without exploring the logic, economics and environmental impact of the idea !

[roverman]

Building a Third Runway at LHR will not ultimately solve the problem of congestion at the UK's busiest airport. When the runway is opened the new capacity will be rapidly taken up and we'll be back where we are today, with calls for a Fourth Runway.
Building another runway simply feeds the monster of the overheated South-East of England and keeps it at bay for a while. What happened to the White Paper of 1978 which identified Manchester as the second airport International Gateway for the UK? Since then most of the constraints on LHR's 2 runways and traffic distribution (bilaterals) have been abolished, and much of the long-haul which had begun to devlop at Manchester has trotted down the M6 to LHR. Hence the ludicrous situation whereby LHR has 4 daily QANTAS flights, Manchester now has none; LHR has 4 daily Cathay flights, Manchester now has none. The list of ex-Manchester flights relocated to LHR goes on - SAA, MAS, BA, AC, and more. SIAs need to fill the A380 now threatens the continuation of their Manchester service.

Airlines will always make more money at Heathrow than at MAN, simply because there are more fat cats and celebs living in the South-East than Up North. The flaw is the policy of allowing air transport strategy to be determined by the markets, which will always put capacity wherever it makes most money, propped up by the fallacy that this is 'good/essential for the UK economy'. We've seen recently what unrestrained markets have done to the financial system, and it's the taxpayer who has to rescue the system when it predictably overheats and collapses.

A third runway at LHR is a nonsense, and I for one may be persuaded to vote Tory on this issue alone. We have to move away from fanning the fire of endless desire for more economic capacity in the South-East. It will not ultimately make the UK a better place and it will just hasten the day when the cries come for yet more of the same. It's just like building more lanes on overcrowded motorways instead of finding out why everyone is driving everywhere. We must fundamentally change the way we view the role of air transport in this country, and start to look at where we have capacity (i.e. Manchester's under-used second runway), and require airlines, including BA, to serve the UK via a proper distribution of traffic. Lufthansa has proved that a successful secondary hub can be established, as at Munich. Emirates now serves 5 cities in the UK direct from Dubai. The UK does not need a bigger Heathrow!

[Skipness One Echo]

London is the cultural capital and financial centre of the country. Deal with it. It's where the business is and where the best theatre, tourism, jobs are. I'm sorry, but I'm from Scotland and tbh social engineering doesn't work, never has. Build the runway or lose the business. Anything else is just frankly blah.

Manchester is great, but tellingly no one came to fill the gap left by BA. The same in Birmingham. The economy is GLOBAL. On one level it sounds comic that you want the economy to come to you in this day and age. You have to go where the jobs and opportunity are, not vice versa. Politicians can mitigate and attract foreign investment, many do this well and pockets of prosperity spring up across the UK. However, there is always a core and a focus and that needs more runway capacity.

Sounds harsh and I have no axe to grind, not being a soft southerner. It's a wierd country is the UK.

[WHBM]

Maybe 50% of the UK resident population find Manchester more convenient than London but the percentage is diminishing every year as the South-East population increases and that in the North decreases.

However the number of overseas air trips generated per head in the South East is at least double that in the North, and the number of premium class trips generated per head in the South East is maybe 5 times or more that in the North, unless you have to give the premium tickets away to fill the seats. As carriers like Continental or Delta will tell you.

Furthermore that is only outgoing passengers. For inbound from overseas the number who want London, not Manchester is up at 80% plus of the total. You don't find this in some other countries (eg Germany) where demand is spread, but do find it in say Russia, where 90% of overseas demand is to/from Moscow.

Facts of life. Get used to them. Unlike the old Soviet Union we don't have central planners telling the airlines where to go in accordance with political posturing, we leave it to the travellers to decide where they want to go. And they have decided.

[manintheback]

Meanwhile its growth has completely stagnated while airports like CDG,MAD etc are experiencing very high growth. - CDG already handles far more movements than LHR and will very probably overtake it on passenger numbers within the next two or three years.

And CDG despite those extra runways has longer average delays per aircraft.

[tornadoken]

Runway 3 @ £13, is it £20Bn. who knows...but this Tory position is worthy of discussion, where Boris' impetuous revival of Maplin-in-the-mud is not. The whole country would benefit from rail (and/or road) enhancement to bring Brum/Leeds/Man closer to London. LHR would benefit from bug-smasher 50-seat slots becoming heavy movements. If regional transit then appeared likely to migrate even more then now to SPL, then more DL, CO, even BA 757/767 LH schedules would emerge at EDI/GLA/MAN/BHX.

Wholly separate issues, please: 1: should Air Anyone offer more LH services from UK regional ports. Well, profit lures. Many have tried, most have retired hurt.
2. Will nice private risk-takers sink £NBn. into another piste at LHR (even if we taxpayers lay it down, we must charge well, to recover across 30 years' usage). Well, only if they see payoff.

Right now punters are migrating to CDG/FRA/SPL because the total LHR experience is abysmal...inc. being stuck on M4 or herded on the Piccadilly Line. Attend to that before compounding the problem by moving from 60Mn towards 100Mn. pax p.a.

[manintheback]

I cant understand the comparison to CDG as a better airport. Its terminals are horrendously overcrowded and just horrible - far worse than LHRs have ever been. Its land side terminal links are abysmal ( a strike ridden irregular bus service). Access via motorway near impossible during rush hours, a train link that you take your life in your hands if used late at night given its route and where it stops. And finally you get to deal with local customer relations on a regular basis. Give me LHR anytime.

[PAXboy]

Day 1: 3rd Runway permission granted
Day 2: BAA have sold it's full capacity to maximise income
Day 3: CAA review what has happened and decide to take no actionThat's it folks!!! In the past 20 years, the politicians (via the CAA) have declined to put any cap on the movements into EGLL and will not do so. If they really wanted to cut fuel burn, they would have put a time limit on inbound stacking but that would cause actual movement numbers to drop and they don't want that.

Fortunately, all of this is academic because, by the time permission is given for the 3rd - it will be too late and numbers will have stabilised to a bearable level. Meanwhile, the Euroports will have risen to reach their planned capacities. The reasons are many but the end result cannot be changed. Simple as that - it is too late to build suitable capacity in the SE of England. British Fudge wins again.

[LHR27C]

Regards Heathrow why are the considerations based on a reduced length runway.

Because it would be easier to build and get through the planning process, LHR doesn't need 3 full length runways.

When the runway is opened the new capacity will be rapidly taken up

No it won't. Heathrow has survived on 2 runways since 1946. This will increase it's capacity by almost 50%. There is no way all that extra capacity would vanish overnight. Yes it will fill up but not immediately.

Hence the ludicrous situation whereby LHR has 4 daily QANTAS flights, Manchester now has none; LHR has 4 daily Cathay flights, Manchester now has none. The list of ex-Manchester flights relocated to LHR goes on - SAA, MAS, BA, AC, and more. SIAs need to fill the A380 now threatens the continuation of their Manchester service.

Not ludicrous, it's called supply and demand. LHR has 4 CX flights because they can fill them, MAN couldn't support one. SIA has got such good loads on the A380 out of LHR that they rejigged their plans and are sending it double daily. There's no "need to fill it", they are sending it to LHR because it will fill it!

If MAN is such a great place with so much demand, how come it has recently been overtaken by STN so it is now the 4th busiest airport in the UK with the 3 major London airports ahead of it?

require airlines, including BA, to serve the UK via a proper distribution of traffic

Require airlines? Why should BA operate flights out of MAN that don't make any money? They're a public company reporting to their shareholders and they will operate routes that make them profits. The fact is that by and large the UK regions do not have the economic levels to support a sufficient amount of premium air travel, and there is much more demand for low-cost carriers. Not BA's fault, just the way it is.

Lufthansa has proved that a successful secondary hub can be established, as at Munich

In economic terms Germany is a completely different country to the UK, businesses and prosperity much more spread out hence LH can operate a MUC hub. Other European countries are very similar to the UK: consider AF whose activities are entirely focused around Paris.

Emirates now serves 5 cities in the UK direct from Dubai

Yup, and BA serves 5 cities in the UK from LHR. It's called hub and spoke. The only reason EK can fly such large aircraft to UK regions is because most of their passengers are connecting onwards from DXB. Just as BA's are through LHR.

this Tory position is worthy of discussion, where Boris' impetuous revival of Maplin-in-the-mud is not. The whole country would benefit from rail (and/or road) enhancement to bring Brum/Leeds/Man closer to London. LHR would benefit from bug-smasher 50-seat slots becoming heavy movements

Read reply 100. The Tories' high speed line would eliminate 3% of LHR's flights.

f regional transit then appeared likely to migrate even more then now to SPL, then more DL, CO, even BA 757/767 LH schedules would emerge at EDI/GLA/MAN/BHX

I think you mean AMS. And no, BA would not start flying longhaul out of the regions. People have to understand that air travel is mostly focused around hub and spoke and the only reason DL, CO etc fly out of the regions is because they are routing pax to their hub, it is not a point to point route. BA also route passengers to their hub from the regions, it just happens to be LHR rather than abroad.

And CDG despite those extra runways has longer average delays per aircraft.

I agree CDG is a ghastly place. And it doesn't surprise me that it has longer average delays than LHR but that's not for lack of capacity, just poor organisation. Look what happens when one of CDG's runways shuts or fog develops, and compare the ensuing delays to LHR in the same position, there'll be a huge difference.

[Skipness One Echo]

To be honest it's all hot air as the Tories need seats in West London. If David Cameron REALLY doesn't support and understand the economic arguments for Heathrow, then I hope Macavity Brown clings on until the last minute and the arrangements for Runway 3 are in place and Cameron has an attack of reason.

A high speed rail link in Britain on budget? Really? Do they KNOW what a fragmented calamity the railways are in.

[birdscarer]

Of course they do! It was the Tories that made them that way!

[Higher Archie]

Some thoughts, admittedly from a Northern Perspective ...

High Speed Rail: It's taken 10 years and £10bn to upgrade the WCML to 125mph. A promised 2 hours to London. Linking to LHR will add another hour via the Heathrow Express.

A new line: The Tories oppose the Planning Bill to speed the UK Planning System, so starting work in 2015, at present, is pie-in-the-sky. The T5 planning process took 15 years.

In an interview, the Tory Shadow Transport Secretary admiitted that there was no idea about the rail line routes. From my observations, there's hills betweem Mnanchester and Leeds. An expensive tunnel ...

The cost: Airports pay for their own infrastructure: If the cost of a new rail line is £20bn, who pays? The UK taxpayer. A LHR runway, BAA pays.

Overall, the Tory plan is electioneering bobbins. It won't happen. The more constraints at LHR will drive long-haul connecting pax to FRA/AMS/CDG sadly rather than to UK airports such as MAN/BHX/NCL.

HA

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

A comment was made above that LHR has survived on two runways since 1946. There was a point, I think in the 1950s, when the airport had 6 runways.

[manintheback]

There was a point, I think in the 1950s, when the airport had 6 runways.


True, but them old piston engined aircraft didnt need much of a runway to get up (and down again)

Wasnt too long ago that Heathrow dropped from 3 useable? to 2, guess 5/6 years back I landed on the runway that ran between the eastern ends of the 2 available now (was an exceptionally windy night)

[LHR27C]

A comment was made above that LHR has survived on two runways since 1946. There was a point, I think in the 1950s, when the airport had 6 runways.

Had 6 runways but they weren't all used at the same time, not least as they all intersected one other. They were arranged in a Star of David pattern and the main benefit was the layout could adapt to winds coming from any direction to within 60 degrees, an important point for earlier aircraft more vulnerable to crosswinds than today's aircraft.

The point I was trying to make is the airport has not had any new runway additions since 1946, in fact it has lost 4 of the 6 original ones, yet managed to cope with the astronomical increases in air traffic over that period. So the suggestion that a new runway that would increase capacity by nearly 50%, would immediately get filled up and a 4th runway demanded, seems implausible given the airport has survived so long on its current arrangement despite massive increases in traffic.

[HeathrowAirport]

Well when the new 27R is built and 27R becomes 27C, i do hope that Heathrow wont be turned into a Gatwick for Spotting. It probably will.


Regards,

Robbie

[PAXboy]

This letter appears in The Independent on Thursday 2nd October

I read with a chuckle and a shudder that your editorial (30 September) supports Boris Johnson's idea for an airport in the Thames estuary. We on the Isle of Sheppey are well aware of the S S Richard Montgomery resting on a sandbank between us and Southend with 3,173 tons of unexploded munitions on board. I'd seriously reconsider.

David Edser-Lands
Isle Of Sheppey, Kent

[Peter47]

If you build the third runway people will get unhappy - not just from bulldozing houses but from more polution, overcrowding, shortage of housing, etc. However if Boris gets the airport moved local flyers will not like having to travel to the Thames Estury, employees would have to move, the local economy would collapse & workers who have to move would have trouble selling their houses. The airport was never going to close so no one felt threatened by that, but with a third runway looking at least possible those affected feel very threatened - not surprisingly.

If both the third runway & total closure have downsides the obvious solution is to build a new airport in the Thames Estury in addition to, not instead of, Heathrow. Well you say, no airline would want to move there as it would take a minimum of five, maybe ten years to reach critical mass and become profitable. True. (Yes its much simpler when as with DEN, MUC & HKG the old airport closes).

Is there a solution? All I can think is that airlines are given incentives to move in term of reduced fees & the ability to realise large sums through slot trading. If BA could acquire BD's slots it would have the oportunity to expand & BD (probably by now owned by LH) could set up a rival hub. Even better if VS could join the party. More importantly those living in East London, Kent & Essex who have less far to go for long haul flights.

Wishfull thinking? Probably. However I think that we need a bit if blue sky thinking like this.

[NWSRG]

Folks,

What is the construction work going on between the ends of Pier 3 and the Europier? Is this the start of Heathrow East?

[HeathrowAirport]

Affirm, also according to the NATS AIP.

I can't access PDF's in School but on the BAA website there is a document also showing the plans. I'll try when i get home too see if i can find it for you.

But i do think that it's for Heathrow East.

[Skipness One Echo]

I asked this question a while back and no one seems to know, however I understand that plans for Heathrow East are still being tinkered with. Slap in the middle of the apron seems like an odd place to begin construction as Phase 1 involves the demolition of the more distant Terminal 2 which has been put back to the middle or possibly the end of 2009. Also I understand that the old international pier is being refurbished.

Seems a shame that the Europier itself will be demolished as part of this redevelopment as it's not that old.

[Prophead]

I think you will find the plans are being a bit more than just 'tinkered with'

The whole T5 fiasco has changed the scheme for Heathrow East.

[HeathrowAirport]

Ministers have approved a controversial plan to build a third runway at Heathrow, the BBC understands.
Despite opposition from residents, environmental campaigners and many of its own MPs, Labour is set to confirm the decision officially on Thursday.

Any thoughts on this, Proffesionally point of view.

[Pinkman]

Did they say how many extra shops would be created?

[girtbar]

My only hope now is that when they lay the tarmac for the new runway that they will hopefully use the members of Plane Stupid as the foundations for it!

[raveng]

Yes agreed.:ugh:

[leeds 65]

Damn right girtbar well said.

Hopefully the security forces will be on red alert at all london airports as the eco loonies will surely be out to disrupt peoples lives on the back of this news.wankers cost me half a days pay at stansted before xmas.:ugh:

[RVR27/09]

I guess this announcement gave a certain Labour MP the rights to declare "The shoots of recovery are appearing" :ugh:.

[22 Degree Halo]

But critics have said it will irreparably damage the UK's credentials on tackling climate change.

Climate change? The biggest hoo-haa ever. Who cares. If the airport needs a third runway go for it, just don't tax everyone for it;)

[TheGorrilla]

New i should have bought an allotment on the proposed site,

[racedo]

Definitely has more to do with the creation of construction jobs and infrastructure development than meeting what BAA need.

Big infrastructural projects will start getting the go ahead as they can create thousands of jobs.

Not a real shock.

Big question is where are all these extra flights going to go to ?

[BYALPHAINDIA]

I Agree, Where will all the extra capacity go???

Very Good For LHR.

But it has been quoted many many times before, One of these days.....They will be a 'major' catastrophie over London???

BANG - Aircraft will collide due to a very congested sky!!

It's only a matter of time.....

Common Sense dictates that there is only so many Aircraft that can be handled SAFELY in a day!!

Think about it.

[old,not bold]

Government White Paper 2003.

My italics;


11.62

The Government supports a third runway..............once we can be confident that the key condition relating to air quality can be met. We judge that there is a substatially better prospect of achieving this with a third runway and terminal capacity built in the 2015 - 2020 period, as long as we take action without delay to tackle the NO2 problem. The Government's support would also be conditional on measures to prevent deterioration of the noise climate and improve public transport access as set out above.

And they wonder why no-one believes a word they say.

[llondel]

Actually, the government appear to be right in line with their white paper. By the time they've had all the legal challenges and dragged all the protesters off the site it probably will be 2015.

[Flying Lawyer]

BAIBut it has been quoted many many times before, One of these days.....They will be a 'major' catastrophie (sic) over London???

The fact that it's been "quoted many many times before", usually by the anti-expansion lobby and/or by others who don't actually know anything about how air traffic is managed, doesn't make it correct.

[Nashers]

listening to the radio on the way home tonight, i heard them say somthing about a T6 to go with the new runway. that would give the extra apron space.

many people complain about the extra pollution but with the new aircrafts coming out now the fule consumption per person and KG of freight on the aircraft is less that a car would use!

and if it means more aircrafts flying, hopefully it means i find a job quicker!!

[VAFFPAX]

Well, even with the third runway approved (although we have yet to see what happens from here onwards), some of the Whitehall geniuses have seen the light on a Heathrow hub for trains to connect the north, west and south to Heathrow better than before (the Arup proposal).

S.

[woodpecker]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e146/naptonboy/EGLL.jpg




Heathrow had six runways a why is this called the "third " runway not the "Seventh"?



.

[fireflybob]

Whilst I was stationary for nearly 2 hours on the M6 due to an RTA on the northbound I was listening to 5 Live discussing the third runway at LHR. They had a lady from Plane Stupid talking - I could have strangled her - never heard so much rubbish spouted, rang the show to protest but they wouldn't put me on as I was calling from the car!! It's about time we all put the counter arguements to the Climate change/Green issues before these clowns get even more air time. Aviation is being very unfairly targeted.

[llondel]

I love that old map. Three pairs of parallel runways. I assume that since then the 9/27 pair got extended to the west and T3 was built on what must have been 23R/5L and 15R/33L (or close)? If one of the BBC journos is reading, how about a good article on the history of Heathrow, it would certainly be topical.

[Bobbsy]

Fascinating map...can anyone put a date to it?

Bob

[BEagle]

Well, Labour are in for a well-deserved ar$e-kicking over this nonsense.

Have you seen how many peoples' homes would be destroyed to feed the greed of BAA with this absurd third runway idea?

At least an early election win by the Conservatives will put an end to this folly.

LHR creaks at the seams already. Nothing to do with runway capacity, everything to do with woeful infrastructure, poor access, expensive car parking, inadequate immigration manning, slow baggage transfer - it's an utter shambles. And it's the only airport with traffic jams inside it that I know of. For such basic reasons as stupid positioning of pedestrian-priority crossings on main roads instead of proper underpass links.

I don't normally support activists, but good luck to all those protesting against Brown's folly - I support your right to lawful protest 100% and hope that you will do everything legally possible to obstruct the absurd idea of another runway at this abysmal London airport.

LHR is the closest airport to me, yet I never use it unless there is absolutely no alternative. Instead I use the markedly superior BHX! Easier access, cheaper to park, no M25 - and it's free of the leaden hand of BAA!

[pax britanica]

I lived just south west of LHR as a child. There were two extensions of what is now 27L at the western end compared to this map. The first one I think actually predated my 'awareness' of aicraft as interesting. things So am going to make at stab at early/mid 50s for the map based on the runway config and the fact that there are central area buldings-say 1953-56

Incidentally although as one poster pointed out there were six runways , on this map 23R/05L is labelled Runway number 7 ??

PB

[Spitfire boy]

To appease west London residents would it work if the new runway was only used for take-offs/departures towards the west? I think FRA and other noise sensitive EU airports have operated new runways with this type of restriction.

Also is there any firm news yet on the runway length? ie. is the plan to squeeze in a shortened runway for regional ops only?

I suspect a new runway will simply mean all the longhaul scheduled operators at LGW move up the road to LHR leaving LGW more lifeless than it is today bar the active orange fleet.

[anartificialhorizon]

Why can't we ever think outside the box, and far enough ahead in this country.

As soon as the M25 was completed they were digging it up and widening it and we are still doing it !!!!:ugh:

Why keep bolting bits onto Heathrow? It's already overcrowded, a nightmare to get to (what time do you have to leave your home to try and get there?) and aircraft noise disturbs 10's of thousands. As one poster has already said it's only a matter of time before shoe horning all these aircraft into this confined area of West London will result in an accident on the ground or worse still a crash into a built up area of London.

The solution? A totally new airport in the Thames Estuary. They have done it in Japan and Korea (and to a certain extent Hong Kong) so why not in the UK. It would be the kick start to the economy from heaven. Thousands of construction jobs overnight. Why not start with a blank piece of paper? No noise worries, 24 hour ops so capacity should not be a problem. Workers will migrate there so could regenerate a pretty run down area. Tailor made infrastructure....

It's obvious. Any airport that is looking at 3 runways and a Terminal 6 is past it's useful life. Just ask anyone at JFK.....

[ix_touring]

Seeing as the thread has drifted away from professional opinion...

I live by the Thames on the extended centerline of 09R. (We chose to move here 4 years ago). I have minor issues with the idea of a 3rd runway, after all it will be a good few miles north of me. However, buried some 50 pages into a recent report was the aim to introduce full time mixed mode use of runways at Heathrow. This I doo have an issue with as currently we get around 1/2 the day with LOW noise and the other half with higher.

As PAX Heathrow is a pain in the a$$ and we choose to use other routes where possible.

As a the owner of a small business I benefit from the Heathrow bump to the local economy too.

CO2 trading and technology will mitigate the climate impact anyway so this is a red herring as an excuse for blocking the development.

my own view despite the above is we need a 24 hour airport elsewhere, Thames estuary, Bristol/Birmingham/oxford area etc....

iX

[stormin norman]

The new runway is great,all we need now is some passengers !

[Kelly Hopper]

I think most of you guys are missing the point here. We all know what an utter shambles Heathrow is and it truly does need pressure taking off it. However a 3rd? runway is not gonna be built to alleviate this but to INCREASE traffic by 50%! :eek:
The government, BAA, designers etc are all mad!
Heathrow is voted the worst airport in the world and any expansion plans will only maintain it's top of the list position.
What is needed is diversification. Spread the load and take the pressure off this airport.
Why is it that the UK is ALWAYS so blinkered when it comes to anything resembling common sense but goes ahead with its own unsupported ideals anyway only to experience the embarrassment of the whole world laughing at its ineptitude later. It's T5 all over again. Will they ever learn?
Heathrow is a national disgrace and no amount of elastoplast on a corpse will bring it back to life! :{

[Walnut]

I think all should listen carefully to Geoff Hoon's statement today. Having heard the Prime Minister yesterday give the H of C an assurance that time would be given for MP's to debate this matter all is not settled. There is a major political lobby to overcome. My gut feeling is if this becomes too difficult then the government will wring its hands and put off the decision until after the next election.

[Flightman]

Well, so much for professional replies. :ugh:

MODS, move this to Jet Blast please.

[No_Speed_Restriction]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e146/naptonboy/EGLL.jpg


Finally, a Jewish airport plan for the UK.

[stormin norman]

And finally ,some people really are out of touch

From the BBC


Guljeet Singh is the new owner of Harmondsworth Village Store, in Harmondsworth's High Street, having taken over the business a month ago.

He said: "The shop has been established for about 10 years so it looked like a good opportunity for us."

News of the expansion plans had come as a shock, he said, as the previous owner had not mentioned them.

[manintheback]

1 extra runway, 50% increase. Plan is to increase flights by 50% or more.
Result = same chaos. And how on earth will they deal with the local infrastructure problems in that area.

Should have gone for extra runways at Gatwick

[felixflyer]

Some people need to go and take a drive round the Heathrow area. There are many many companies who rely on Heathrow being where it is. From hotels to inflight meals they industry supporting the airport is huge and employs many many people from the surrounding areas. To suggest that all these people will just move over to the other side of London is laughable:D:D

There has already been a commitment to keep Heathrow with the building of T5 (A world class terminal by the way of which we should be proud rather than just banging on about the teething problems in its first week). There is as we speak millions being spent on massive engineering projects both above and below ground to improve the place. Heathrow East will now become a reality and will replace the existing old terminals with a new one to beat even T5. Of course we will all be looking for the leaking taps or broken escalators on the opening day rather than celebrating it as thats what we do in the UK.:* The amount of news crews that descended on T5 once things started to go wrong was unbelievable.

As for the argument about getting to the airport i do it every day during the rush hour and dont really have any problems. The M25 is the worst part but you can hardly blame BAA for that. Just how do you think the people form the south and south west will get to the Thames Estuary anyway?

Heathrow is here to stay and long may it remain.

[Mr Flaps]

After reading all the posts. There is a clear divide from all parties here.
Looking at the prospect of moving LHR east and building a new airport in the Thames Estuary with the necessary infrastructure would be solve a lot of problems. But as one poster has said that it would cause major problems moving the jobs and other facilities like catering and cargo.
A purpose built airport would be best, but the major cost of the infrastructure is one huge problem that would have to be overcome. But you can’t just build an airport you would have to build the roads and high speed rail links from all parts of the country. Not just London. There is a bigger country outside the London area and this is forgotten all too many times.
A Thames Estuary airport should not be thrown out.
As for the current animal that is LHR in its present state it is a national disgrace T1 and T2 are old dark, damp, the inside of the terminals is held together with sticky tape and I feel embarrassed when I meet a flight in and the first thing people see of LHR and the UK is wires hanging down, buckets catching the rain and freezing cold gate rooms. I can go on and on. Oh and let’s not forget the 5 shopping malls that passengers and airline staff have to get through.
Yes a third runway would help and 6th terminal but you have got to look at the rest of LHR too. That will not be a quick fix far from it. Getting from central London has never been quicker. But I come in from bucks 5 times a week and would take the train, but there is no rail links from the South, West or North of the airport. So I am forced into my car and chock the already over crowed roads.
There is no easy answer to this. But I do just hope the environmentally protesters keep their protests quite and think of others when they protest. And I hope they get to LHR in green way. Say walking or on public transport and not private car. Would be very interesting to see the carbon foot print from their little picnic the other night.

[woodpecker]

A date to this one...

1956

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e146/naptonboy/EGLL56.jpg

[autobrake3]

LHR had its day about 30 yrs ago. It has since turned into an embarrassing farce with the exception of its ATC. How is a shoe-horned 2000 m runway supposed to bring it into competive line with the rest of Europes' far superior offerings. It's time to turn it into a housing estate and invest in a proper modern efficient Thames Estuary airport.

[L'aviateur]

What I don't understand, is why at the worlds worst airport they believe they need another runway. I know that it is believe that anything North of London isn't really England. But I do think we should be looking at developing a real hub designed in similar standards to Schiphol or Singapore Changi or Hong Kong. Airports that have actually been designed to be a hub, rather then adding a bit here and there. Terminal 5 is just awful, and I cannot understand why they didnt have a look at other countries where they have had success.

My belief is that there is no need to develop Heathrow, but more so to develop a hub somewhere North of London with some space to expand and designed properly from the outset.

[felixflyer]

Mr Flaps

Google 'Heathrow East and 'Airlink' These projects are basically what you describe in your post.

[Skipness One Echo]

The whole strategy here is to give LHR the space it needs so that the congestion and the traffic will be allieviated. It's a shame about Sipson but then Stansted expansion is going to demolish some nicer villages with the only return being more loco travel. Glad they picked the right battle first. I hope that some of the more pragmatic donors to the Tories pressure "Call me Dave" to get real about what London really needs.

I look forward to an improved and world class Heathrow. I was damning about BAA and T5 on opening but having given them time and a chance, it's a pleasure to use. It CAN be done.

[Flightman]

[QUOTE] My belief is that there is no need to develop Heathrow, but more so to develop a hub somewhere North of London with some space to expand and designed properly from the outset.

Great idea. Let's do that and what will happen. People who live in the area affected will beleat and whine just as those affected by R3 are now. :ugh:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<But it has been quoted many many times before, One of these days.....They will be a 'major' catastrophie over London???
BANG - Aircraft will collide due to a very congested sky!!
It's only a matter of time.....
Common Sense dictates that there is only so many Aircraft that can be handled SAFELY in a day!!>>

But it HAS NOT happened, has it? And it won't happen because ATC and good procedures are there to prevent it from happening.

Let's not have any more sensationalist rubbish, please

[racedo]

Finally, a Jewish airport plan for the UK.

I had the exact same feeling on that :)

[Serenity]

If the government were really serious they`d get a move on and ensure that it was built to handle extra traffic coming into London for the 2012 Olympics.
The Chinese built an entire airport the size of Heathrow in nearly that time!!!

[racedo]

I hate LHR because it is so big but also love it because it is so big.

Crackpot idea of a new airport in middle of Thames estuary is just that.

LHR employs directly or indirectly well in excess of 100,000 people. Suggesting a new airport miles away means you have to provide accommodation / transport and services for another 1/2 million people close to the airport because with families and dependants that is minimum that will be required. Most people won't move but you will still need people to do their jobs.

People talk of the environmental impact but shoving a million tons of airport in the middle of the estuary will basically ensure that all the coast on both sides starts to flood at each and every tide with a probably impact further back along the Thames in London as its flow will be disrupted and it will back up.

[rubik101]

High speed rail links to Birmingham, Manchester, the West Country and the South coast directly to the heart of LHR would alleviate a great deal of the domestic air traffic that currently uses the airport. As well as making travel for residents in the UK far more flexible and easy, these rail links can be used for freight and so reduce road congestion.

The free slots can then be used to generate even more long-haul transit passengers who provide no financial benefit to UK PLC whatsoever.Technology will mean that few, if any, new jobs will be generated by the new runway once construction is completed by all the Polish and East European workers who are currently buidling the Olympic sites.

A third runway will not alleviate the current overcrowding of the airspace above, nor the roads to LHR nor will it ever get the air quality that the EU have imposed on the industry so just why are GB and the rest of his cronies going ahead with a project that most people agree is a waste of money.

The research to justify this runway was carried out in 2000 to 2004 and is no longer valed. Since then we have seen oil rise to $147 a barrell and, thankfully, come back to a more reasonable figure. However, the signs are there that such a price or even higher, is not so far away in the future. Who can foresee what the situation be in 15 years, which is about how long the runway will take to build?

It will be opened at a time of contracting air traffic, very high oil prices, airlines in bankruptcy and public antipathy and negative reaction against the polluting aviation industry. The runway might well be there but the justification for it will never be valid in its long and uselss lifetime.

Build railways and nuclear power stations to power them and Get Britain Moving!

[Torquelink]

Minimum 10 years to come on stream. By then the current noisiest aircraft such as the 744 will have gone. So will most 73 Classics, 767s, MD80s etc - there will be a noticeable reduction in per aircraft noise. 10 years after that, aircraft noise will be a non event - probably won't hear A320/737 replacements beyond the perimeter and widebodies already dominated by 787/A350 which will be much much quieter than the already quiet A380 will be on their way to being replaced by whatever comes next which is bound to be quieter still. There may be other issues but, looking ahead, noise shouldn't be one of them.

[diddy1234]

Heathrow is in the wrong location and should have moved to reclaimed land in the Thames Estuary years ago.

I do wonder how long it will be before an aircraft has a serious problem (mechanical or terrorist) on finals flying over the centre of London.

BA038 springs to mind or imagine a Lockerbie crash over the center of London.
This is very scarey to think about.
The BA038 crew performed an amazing job getting that aircraft to the airfield.

Maybe WHEN (I don't think its a case of if but when - statistics anyone ?) there is a next time luck will run out !

If the third runway gets the go ahead then Heathrow is going to be one serious logistical mess. Not a very nice looking airport !
However I do understand the economics and why a third runway is needed.

I just wish someone (in the past) had the balls to stand up and say at some stage we need to move Heathrow to a safer location.

RD

[Kelly Hopper]

Instead of going it alone, spending much more than you need to and fecking it up look at how others do it!
Oslo, Stockholm, Riga, and many more. Situate the airport out of town, say 40kms or so and build a good transport infastructure to service it. From all over the country. Not a stupid expensive train to Paddington (which is not the centre of the city and everyone then has to get additional transport) where you have to walk 1/2 way to London just to find the train!
It's been done countless times already but will they follow a system that works? Not on your life. Just like the personel ID cards fiasco. It exists elsewhere so if you are hell bent on having the system, adopt a system with a proven track history not spend billions trying to re-invent the wheel only to find once you have done it you forgot to put spokes in it!
But only in UK do you have to live with this bo77ocks, no-where else!
'Having a bad day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[felixflyer]

OK can we stop talking about fantasy island. Even if this did ever get the go ahead it would be decades before it was operational and would not solve the current problems at Heathrow. We would still need the 3rd runway as well.

And the arguement that we should not redevelop Heathrow because it is in need of redevelopment is really intelligent.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[diddy1234]

ok expand Gatwick then

land is not an issue there

[manintheback]

As usual Government thinking isnt quite on the ball. Only new aircraft (whatever thats supposed to mean) can use the new runway

So all the old ones will just be directed to the existing 2 then...

Net result - meaningless.

[Tyreplug]

I'm dead against it. The country is too London Centric already. What is wrong with Manston? Huge runway and not that far from the capital. Improve the already good road and rail links - job done!

[Alvin]

Quote:
Finally, a Jewish airport plan for the UK.

I had the exact same feeling on that
Today 10:02

Does that mean they would have to close LHR on Saturdays?

[Airline Tycoon]

1) No Mixed Mode

2) Cranford Agreement scrapped

3) Third Runway a go

[Skipness One Echo]

Very sensible in all, I am pleased at the sensible pragmatic approach. Never thought I'd say that about Buff Hoon. Am impressed, Cranford agreement goes and Windsor gets a 3pm switchover when landing on the 09s.

[Artificial Horizon]

I have to agree with BEagle, as someone who flies out of LHR I think the 3rd runway is a BAD idea, the airport at the moment is appallingly organised and run. Officially LHR is 98% capacity, I think that this figure is underestimated and LHR is actually over capacity. Whenever we have quiet periods e.g. post x-mas and the movements are reduced by 3-5% the airport just works beautifully. The 3rd runway should only be built if BAA/NAT's are forced to 'cap' the number of movements, otherwise the greed will take over and the result will be 3 runways at near 100% capacity with the resulting congestion meaning more airbourne holding delays etc. One way of improving LHR overnight would be to remove the restriction on the use of slot pairs, at the moment if the slot is not used more than 80% of the planned time then the airline defaults on the slot and it is returned to BAA/NAT's, the result of this is that we often fly near empty aircraft to destinations all over the world just to retain the slot???!!!! Lifting this alleviation would allow airlines to cut back where necessary.

[Skipness One Echo]

Artificial Horizon that's the plan. Phased and controlled capacity increase. Must say I was astonished, very well thought out IMHO for once by Labour. The Tories came right back on the Environment with a very strident woman laying into Hoon. Over time, the Tories are on the wrong side of this as 1) Business nedds it and 2) It is a major job creation project as we head into recession.

Cameron comes back LEADING on the Green issue, important as it is won't sustain itself I think.

[ORAC]

Hoon's statement to the House: Britain’s Transport Infrastructure (http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/statements/infrastructure)

[Bagso]

Wonder what the bods in the BBC will think when they move to Media City in Manchester...

They will then have get on a train for 4 hours to get them to Heathrow assuming they need to fly on the "National Airline " BA to a long haul destination.....

I'll stick with the foriegn airlines DIRECT from Manchester !

[Re-Heat]

Why not mention instead that it is simply a rebuild of the old runway...at the old airfield that Chamberlain arrived at from Munich in 1938, claiming "this means peace in our time"...

[Xeque]

This seems like a better idea.
London Airports expansion (http://julesaitch.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/london-airports-expansion/)
Any chance one of our great and glorious politico's might understand??
And pigs might fly :mad:

[RVF750]

Oh the world in which we live, eh?

Take a look at virtually anytime at LHR and you'll see large aircraft waiting at the hold for 10-15 minutes, burning incredible amounts of JET-A1. Look at BNN, LAM or the other holds and every day there's the majority of arrivals going round in circles for the usual 10-15 minutes or more. Again how much fuel burned?

Reducing delays into and out of LHR should be the reason shouted by this incompetent useless bunch of politicians, reductions in fuel used could be in the millions of tonnes per annum, with runways having simultaneous use for either take off or landing depending on flow requirements, or even mixed mode for one of the three- 09L/27R being the obvious guess.

The key to improvemenmts for ecological reasons, something the Greens cannot deny is reduced holding, and taxi times. Win-Win if we all remained logical and sensible.

Just my 2p worth....

[llondel]

Incidentally although as one poster pointed out there were six runways , on this map 23R/05L is labelled Runway number 7 ??

As far as I can tell, the one that is missing is number 3. Isn't that what they're trying to build now? :}

The game isn't over yet, there's at least one election and a load of other stuff before anyone starts demolishing or digging. Apart from the fact that the people around Stansted will be a trifle annoyed, I still reckon that adding the second runway there and putting in a good, high-speed rail link between there and Heathrow would be better. If they can keep the transit time around an hour, that's often no worse than a practical connection through Heathrow anyway, although there's always someone who's miss the last train. Once that was established, Stansted could be slowly improved to take over as the main airport over the course of a couple of decades.

[Skipness One Echo]

The people of Stansted have no wish for a pictureesque area to be demolished forever to add another runway for Ryanair and easyJet. STN is on the wrong side of London for the vast numer of businesses that rely on Heathrow to connect them to the world.
Stansted as London's #1 is fantasy.

[PAXboy]

Dash&ThumpTake a look at virtually anytime at LHR and you'll see large aircraft waiting at the hold for 10-15 minutes, burning incredible amounts of JET-A1. Look at BNN, LAM or the other holds and every day there's the majority of arrivals going round in circles for the usual 10-15 minutes or more. Again how much fuel burned?The reason they have so many waiting and holding is to maximise the use of the runways. BUT - if they build the 3rd, they will not just reduce the waiting times, they will add NEW rotations (to justify and pay for it) and so the waiting/holding times will stay the same.

I agree that reducing them now and saving zillions of tons of fuel should be a priority. But it isn't and won't be. My bet is that LGW will get it's second and the LHR 3rd won't happen - certainly not within the next fifteen years.

[EGLD]

As a local resident perfectly comfortable, perhaps even comforted by the noise of the ever present Heathrow, I could expend some energy here siding with the residents of Sipson and Harmondsworth about to have their homes and businesses demolished for an undemocratically approved project by an undemocractic government, but what's the point?

If Labour are re-elected after the mess of the last 5 years and the time between now and a General Election, I'll eat my hat.

The Tories will be elected and scrap this along with ID cards.

Good times ahead. :)

[mickyman]

Considering that jetfuel burn is credited with 2% of the global
CO2 'problem' more aircraft flying/holding will not really dent
this statistic.

R3 will not be built within the next ten years.

Liberalism has taken over the asylum

Substitute 'Green' for 'PC' isms.

A curse be on the middle class liberals and all who
represent them.

MM

[Re-Heat]

Perhaps the answer to the missing "3" in the old map, is that there were in fact planned runways to the North already, in place of the other airfield that was in fact previously located over there...

[daved123]

This was the layout when I joined Pan Am in May 1961, working in telecoms upstairs from the International departure lounge in the building located by the pointer from 'London Airport North'
In the Central area the 'South East Pax Bldg' was used for domestic flights and later became Terminal 1
In early 1963 we re-located to a building adjacent to the Pan American hangar which does not exist on the map (bottom right) at this time, located between the small access road to the apron and the pointer line from the title, so this makes the map pre-1962 at least.
Incidentally, runway No 2 (NE-SW near BOAC hangars) was used for cross-wind landings from the NE but FD crews had to be aware when lining up for landing not to confuse the visual cue of the large gasometer at Southall with the similar large gasometer at Harrow which would lead to landing at Northolt airport, as a PanAm B707 skipper managed to do :=
Said gasometers later gained large white lettering NO and LH.

daved

[AirScrew]

As a PPL, I have no professional view as a site surveyor or ATC'er.

But I see there may be an alternate to Sipson (ie a // 3rd runway to the north)

Many of you will be familiar with EDDF/FRA, and the 3rd runway layout.
Could this work at LHR??

There is land to the west, // to the M25 in a 02/20 NNE/SSW layout, with what looks like a clear 4.5km.

Stanwell Moor would loose some houses, but in my estimation far fewer than Sipson, and without the old A4 Bath road impact.

Access appears possible either south or north of T5, or both.

Downside is that there would not be room for T6.

So;

Q. ATC, can this layout accommodate the same volume as the Sipson layout, or does the conflict significantly reduce the volume compared to // ops??

Q. Are the approach/takeoff areas more or less of an issue than Sipson??

Q. Is the wind/weather a serious issue for 02/20??

Q. Do we definitely need more terminal space, or is T5 and a redeveloped T2/3 enough??


Any other thoughts, pro or con??

[llondel]

Skipness One Echo:
Stansted as London's #1 is fantasy.

I know, it's just that it's only 30 minutes' drive from here, compared to Heathrow's 90+M25effect. It would make more sense than Heathrow for anyone who wasn't in London or the SE, but no one else matters. I used to work in Bishops Stortford so I'm well aware of the opinion of the locals. I have some sympathy, although the airport was there before they were.

That's the problem with a brand new site - it suddenly affects a load of people who might have chosen to live there because there were no main roads or low-flying aircraft nearby. The same goes for other things such as football stadia - if you move next to one then you've got very few grounds for complaint about matchday noise, but if they suddenly come along and build one in the big field next to your quiet house, you've got a lot more reason to be aggrieved.

EGLD:
The Tories will be elected and scrap this along with ID cards.

No, they'll manage to do nothing so that by default it happens and they get to blame it on the present Labour government, especially if they don't have to pay towards it. Hopefully not as true with ID cards.

Ultimately the greens will lose until they persuade enough people to stop flying (or the price goes up and people can't afford to fly). Only then will there be enough opinion on their side to influence politicians to the required degree.

[befree]

People are flying less. The pound is going to stay weak and expansion is dead.
The greenwash they are applying will cost billions and no one has the billions to pay for it. BAA is broke, BA is broke. A bigger LHR will mean BA having to expand to keep others out. Also BAA are going to waste billions on planning while the existing system collapse

[nuclear weapon]

If a third runway is needed then it nshoulld be built. I dont know why all these emotionally blinded environmental loonies are taken seriously. They talk of global warming yet Europe is going through the cooldest winter in decades. Modern aircraft are quieter more fuel efficient and safer. Perherps we should try driving across the atlantic if we're allowed to build a bridge that would do the job.
It is far more greener to fly 400 pax on a modern jummbo jet than than to have them drive if that were possible.

[Walnut]

After the New York A320 crash today maybe one should consider the effects of a similar incident off the end of the new proposed runway. The M25 would not be a pretty site.

[MUFC_fan]

After the New York A320 crash today maybe one should consider the effects of a similar incident off the end of the new proposed runway. The M25 would not be a pretty site.


Canary Warf would be less pretty than the M25, both to look at and for the economy as a whole.

Overall, there are a number of problems for the third runway including more flights, more pollution etc. BUT how does it benefit us?

Firstly, as has been said many times, this creates more jobs for the British economy which is fantastic however you look at it. It has been quoted at up to 100,000 people I believe?

Secondly, although we will probably see an increase in emissions in the short term due to increased flights, these will probably be reduced when the runway is completed when we would expect the 787 and 350 to be in full swing and new short haul aircraft in the air which should be more eco-friendly. Also, with a new runway it will reduce the time planes spent in the air waiting to line as smaller aircraft such as the A320 and B737 will be using the new runway which will make more room on the other runways increasing efficiency.

And, personally, I believe the most important factor is that Heathrow remains ahead of Paris CDG, Amsterdam Schiphol and Frankfurt Main. Heathrow is seen as the world's hub, although it is third in the list and it really needs to maintain it's status. This facility is a British necessity and no doubt benefits our economy most likely more than any other facility in the country. 000's of jobs are supported by Heathrow whether you are CEO of BAA or a taxi driver living in London.

The new runway will provide a number of problems but I believe for the sake of our economy, our welfare and our future, a third runway will pit the airport against Chicago and Atlanta for capacity and with Schipol and Changi for quality.

[PPRuNe Radar]

After the New York A320 crash today maybe one should consider the effects of a similar incident off the end of the new proposed runway. The M25 would not be a pretty site.

Take that to its logical conclusion and we should maybe close every airfield in the world ??

[Walnut]

The logical conclusion is you do not add to airport capacity in built up areas, look at Munich, Paris, Frankfurt etc, etc. This accident is a wake up call to airport planners, we had a very near miss at LHR recently, and they were very lucky yesterday in New York. All future planning should consider this problem, rural sites with high speed transit links like Hong Kong must be the way ahead.

[Michael SWS]

I know, it's just that it [Stansted] i's only 30 minutes' drive from here, compared to Heathrow's 90+M25effect. It would make more sense than Heathrow for anyone who wasn't in London or the SE, but no one else matters.I would guess that Heathrow is more convenient than Stansted for the majority of people in the UK. For everyone except those who live in Essex and East Anglia, Stansted is in the middle of nowhere, and difficult and expensive to get to.

There should be a complete stop to airport expansion in the UK. We need better airports, not bigger ones.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Does anyone know why mix-mode isn't used at Heathrow?

[6chimes]

Re mixed mode. I was under the impression (could be wrong) that the runways are to close together and that is why the new runway is to be so far away (min 1km).

Even with modern technology the proximity of the runways and the possibility of Go rounds on each runway a mid air collision is still not out of the question.

Thats my understanding.

6

[Skipness One Echo]

Does anyone know why mix-mode isn't used at Heathrow?

The runways are used in mixed mode before 7am, however due to the massive number of houses under the flightpath, to give them a degree of respite from incessant heavies over their houses, the landing and departure runways are switched at 3pm when landing to the West. Until yesterday, this did not apply on the other end when landing was always on 09L and departure on 09R. This was known as the Cranford agreement, which Geoff Hoon announced yesterday was being abolished. Hence landings and departures will now swap over at 3pm when landing to the East in the future.

It is NOT an issue of the runways being too close together as you can see 747-400s shooting the approach in parallel most days.

[ORAC]

After the New York A320 crash today maybe one should consider the effects of a similar incident off the end of the new proposed runway. The M25 would not be a pretty site. The east and west approaches to LHR are not renowned breeding sites or migration routes for geese or other fowl.

On the other hand, the alternate site of the Thames estuary being proposed is such an area. (http://www.rspb.org.uk/news/details.asp?id=tcm:9-203710) I would suggest that the chances of such an occurence happening would be far, far higher there than inside the M25. :hmm:

[Gonzo]

Hence landings and departures will now swap over at 3pm when landing to the East in the future.

:ugh: :mad: :ugh:

Great.

Can't wait.

Trying to get T4 outbounds to the 09L holding area will take hours!

[MUFC_fan]

There should be a complete stop to airport expansion in the UK. We need better airports, not bigger ones.


Economically, that is suicide.

Imagine, if American wanted to launch a new service from say, Phoenix to Europe, and naturally, LHR is the airport of choice but because of a new laws in the UK stating all airports cannot expand, they have to fly to BRU instead meaning less money coming into the UK with all those people on board ready to spend their money.

In a mixed market it is not possible to let airports refrain from growing at all. You can look at places such as Stansted who have had limits on the number of passengers but these have been limits set ahead of their current passenger numbers, well...when it was first introduced. It is like a dictatorship saying that an airport cannot do anything until they are improved - what right do the government have to tell business how to run unless it becomes a social cost that affects the government?

This is one of the reasons why the EU has not included aviation in the carbon trading scheme. If somebody was flying from Kuala Lumpar to New York. Their intention would be to fly KUL-LHR-JFK with BA but because they now have huge fees on pollution permits it is more cheaper to fly via DXB or DOH which again, takes business away from the UK and Europe. It also makes it less attractive for foreign airlines to fly into the EU.

We are in a global market and we need to keep up and in some cases stay ahead of the rest of the world.

[mickyman]

I am not a fan of the 'big-bang' theory of Economics.

MM

[13 please]

Incidently, there are numbers of Canada Geese residing in the park by Waterside.

They very regularly fly over my roof, I love watching them.You can hear them coming from quite a distance.

Funnily enough the route they take is the very route of the proposed 3rd runway..!! The park is just off what would be the end of the runway..

[befree]

The birds are fighting back. Two 737s written off in the last few months. The green groups may be a pain but the birds will take out a 737 quite easily. It seems they want the sky back.

[Skipness One Echo]

We'll take you seriously on here when you learn the difference between an Airbus A320 and a Boeing 737.

[Re-Heat]

Manston is miles away from London
Gatwick is too far South to be of use to anyone North (Birmingham would benefit though)
Luton is too small
Stansted too far east (and problems of its own in expansion)
Thames Estuary is not fanciful at all.

Birdstrikes / crashes - almost an irrelevance really. Canada geese flock around Heathrow and will flock around the Thames as well. Birdstrikes will happen - management of the problem will minimise it. London City sits beside massive marsh areas of Belvedere, Erith and Dartford areas, yet operates safely.

The train network is connected to the Maplin Sands area through the new HS1 link; while Heathrow undoubtedly needs high speed rail to remove domestic flights that are inefficient and clog up the airport, a rail line going only to Heathrow will be uneconomic as compared to a used line going to France and Kent already.

I for one disagree though with the issue of crashes over the City - that too is I believe an utter irrelevance derived from the days when people did not understand engineering of aeroplanes. They will always fly over populated areas, and though occassionally disasters will happen - most flights are just fine. Disasters such as Lockerbie might still occur today over cities even if all airports were in the sea.

[Re-Heat]

Just think of the possibilities of the Thames airport: integrated logistics, cargo flights 24 hrs that connect to a rail network, close proximity to new London sea container port permitting massive industrial impetus to economy.

Sorry, was being fanciful that someone in government might know how to kickstart this economy.

Of course it will be done piecemeal. Silly me.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Has anyone got a map or a link to a map of where the 3rd runway will be in relation to the existing runways?

Cheers

[Serenity]

So if you were to build a large modern airport the size of , or larger, than LHR in the Thames estuary, what exactley would be the effects of displace waters, tides and flows of the Thames river, all the way up as far as say Oxford???

Let me guess, no one has worked it through??? :=

[pug]

Realisticaly, what are the chances of re-instating the domestic feedwer services from say LPL, NQY, EXT, HUY etc? An article in crains manchester suggests Peel are playing the news by saying it could open up oppertunities for LPL and DSA with feeder flights and help save those still at MME?

Is this likely or will it just result in more short-haul routes from Europe?

[13 please]

for a map, you could try
www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/airplot/airplot-map (http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/airplot/airplot-map)

or also

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2009/jan/15/heathrow-third-runway (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2009/jan/15/heathrow-third-runway)

[haughtney1]

My opinion is that LGW would be the best spot for a second runway....
Its an easy place to get too if you can get to victoria station, the road links are very good, and best of all, there are less duty free shops in the terminal!
:ok:

[Brewster Buffalo]

Does anyone know why mix-mode isn't used at Heathrow?
The Government ruled out mixed mode as part of its policy statement in January 2009, even though it would increase capacity. The statement doesn't go into detail why this was rejected.

Looks like a better solution than another runway...

[13 please]

Obviously BA and BAA would like the extra runway and mixed-mode.

If they get the runway, it would be easier to introduce mixed-mode at a later date, rather than the other way round. The conditions set out by Hoon regarding a cap on extra aircraft movements and no to mixed-mode, can be easily changed.

[LHR27C]

Obviously BA and BAA would like the extra runway and mixed-mode.

If they get the runway, it would be easier to introduce mixed-mode at a later date, rather than the other way round. The conditions set out by Hoon regarding a cap on extra aircraft movements and no to mixed-mode, can be easily changed.

In fact, according to the studies NATS have done, the optimum configuration of the three runways for maximising movements and avoiding ground congestion is to retain the two existing runways on segregated and operate the 3rd on mixed.

I don't think Hoon specified anything about the configuration of the 3rd runway. Obviously operating it on segregated along with the other two would be ineffective as either take-offs or landings would still be confined to one runway.

[AUTOGLIDE]

while Heathrow undoubtedly needs high speed rail to remove domestic flights that are inefficient and clog up the airport

I shouldn't worry about it. The European carriers are doing an excellent job of connecting to far more UK destinations than are served from LHR, and generally more cheaply, from their own hubs if you cannot fly to your own destination directly from your local airport. We don't need a train route to LHR thanks.

[Trinity 09L]

Is Mr Hoon's reference to 09L departures only dependent on the 3rd runway, or a new intiative irrespective of 3rd runway ie no substance from a politico;) with no thought on method?

[Donkey497]

Apart from the Government still being under the illusion that they still own Heathrow & British Airways (probably fits on with many of their other current delusions). Why the hell should there be an overwhelming desire on their part to try to force every traveller and every ounce of freight through Heathrow?

I may just be a simple taxpayer (i.e one of the poor S.O.B.'s that has to pay for their largesse), but surely if the country had a more distributed availability of flights to the rest of the world, the south east corner of the country wouldn't be so overcrowded with overloaded & failing infrastructure. We probably wouldn't need to consider the same level of investment in road & rail just to try to bring more of the country into a reasonable travel time from Heathrow purely to justify the investment in Heathrow.

Being of a practical frame of mind, if the Government were truly serious about providing a world class facility with high safety standards, then they should give notice that Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted would close within five years and their land given up for housing. These three airports should be replaced by a brand new airport out by Kelvedon / Tiptree or out in Norfolk/Suffolk where things are nice & flat and a proper multi-runway airport like Atlanta could be built with high speed dedicated rail links to various parts of the south of the country. Flight paths would be clear of major population centres at the higher risk landing / take off phases of flight and it could be built to suit today's & tomorrow's aircraft with extra -long runways to give longer take off and landing rolls which ould cut down noise by reducing thrust & reverse thrust needed. Five years notice might seem too short when you look at the saga of T5, but if Hong Kong could get a new airport on an island that didn't exist together with about 20 miles of multilane motorway and dual deck suspension bridges in the virtually the same period there's no reason why it can't happen on dry land here, other than lack of political will.

[13 please]

Donkey497, personally I think you make a lot of sense, however that's not what BA and BAA want.

This 3rd runway decision isn't for the good of the country's economy, otherwise they'd distribute aircraft traffic and jobs to other parts of the country who need those more.

[Skipness One Echo]

No one is stopping anyone supplying flights outside of London. The hub and spoke system for long haul traffic is a global one. The short haul model is loco and the regions are well served by this.

My life is micromanaged enough as it is without the government telling airlines to move their operations to the regions. They fly to where they can make the most money. END OF. Success attracts success, and if the UKs world hub is truncated, then the traffic will move to CDG, FRA or AMS long before they tinker with LBA or LPL. Please get real.

It's a business, not a social service. This is why LGW just lost Oman Air, the latest of many to make the move to LHR. It's a reasonably free market. I suggest you write to flyglobepan, they tried some long haul from the regions recently. It wasn't a great success.....

[PAXboy]

The govt only approved this piece of paper so that they could appear business friendly and try to garner a few more votes in the next election. They (and us) know that 3R ain't gonna get built. It is a paper runway.

[AUTOGLIDE]

What irritates me is the constant proclamations of how this runway is good for the 'UK', how it should be built for the 'UK', and much words on how best people from the rest of the UK should travel to connect via LHR. The UK outside of the South East does need LHR (or BA). We have our own airports, direct flights, our LOCO's, U.S, European and Middle Eastern carriers who will connect us via their generally rather nice hubs. The rest of the UK needs LHR not one little bit. If this runway is built then fine, if somebody is crazy enough to go around causing carnage building a runway on a heavily populated brown field site then go ahead. Just don't say it's for the 'UK' because it's not, it (arguably) benefits the London/South East economy so leave the rest of the country out of it. And please don't give me the 'City is the engine of the UK economy' garbage so 'what benefits the SE benefits the whole country' the 'city' just killed the UK economy.

[Skipness One Echo]

building a runway on a heavily populated brown field

Never been there have you? It's NOT heavily populated believe me. Are we saying no one connects through Heathrow from the regions then? Perhaps we should just axe all domestic access to Heathrow?

[MAN777]

This whole thing is just an example of what we do best in this country, "cobbling together and making do" you can pour billions into LHR but its still in the wrong place, continued development of this cast off from the post war era. It is in my view, very short sighted, we need to look ahead and do what the French and Dutch have done, build properly for the future. Take a large flat area, north of London, that can operate 24 / 7 without restrictions and without noise to millions of residents, and dont anyone dare say we have no space, that is utter c**p I fly all over the UK at low level and see the space we have, yes it may belong to the wealthy few, but that should not stop the government if its really serious about the UK competing with other hubs.

So what if R3 and T6 get built in years to come and they quickly fill ? where to next ? Scratching of heads "wish we had invested properly in the late 90s" was heard all round !!!:)

[Donkey497]

My point entirely.......:ok:

[Shyted]

Skip,

Can you honestly tell me that all the US carriers that moved over to LHR are making money on all there routes. Some of them have already switched to smaller acft (maybe just for the winter) and a few have dropped services.
Is it just a case of operating the services to keep the slots(use them or lose them)and save face on the fact they paid ridiculous amounts of money to get them.
I have not counted them, but there must be well over a 100 flts a day across the pond from LHR.....talk about overkill.

[Skipness One Echo]

Uniteds new Denver service has gone seaosnal and Continental exchanged one B767-200 for a B757-200 as the range of the 767 was needed elsewhere. The capacity is identical. NWA have dropped their new route to Seattle as it didn't work.
The market wants to serve LHR over LGW on the atlantic every time. The only reason BA have any long haul at LGW is simply due to capacity constraints at LHR. DL are also moving to LHR lock stock and barrell as soon as they can source the slots.

So we say one of two things.

1) Allow the market to decide in which case LHR wins every time due to higher yields
2) Go back to regulated air travel a la 1970s with politicians and bureaucrats telling the airlines where they must fly to.

No one is preventing other airports being served but LHR is a world airport losing connectivity year on year. So either expand it, or let it wither. In an ideal world we wouldn't be expanding an airport there but we are where we are. Boris Island is a non starter due to obvious wildlife issues, costs of building an island on Western European labour costs and the high yield catchment area being down the M4 corridor on the wrong side of London.
LGW is open for business but business chooses Heathrow for good reasons.

I know West London well. Being concreted over, is an improvement to parts of that borough. We need the capacity now, or 1997 at the earliest. ( *cough* ) Some of the schemes proposed above would gift jobs, routes, trade and business to the French and the Germans and in case you haven't noticed, the economy is getting VERY Darwinistic. Time to wisen up, build the damn thing, create the jobs, put the infrastructure in. I'm no fan of Brown but he got this one spot on.

[felixflyer]

Im with Skipness on this one.

Why do people think it is an easy thing to do to just relocate Heathrow! Look at the airport area on a map and all those factories, hotels, warehouses etc are all serving the airport. Do we just relocate those as well? What about all the workers? Mass migration to Norfolk/Kent plus construction of a huge airport would cause more protests that the third runway. The Thames island is an impossible dream.

The land to the north of Heathrow is suprisingly empty actually.

[Shyted]

Skip

I can fully understand the reasons why airlines choose LHR because of the higher yields. I just dont think its the case at the moment. I read stories that BA in particular are loosing lots of 1st and Biz class passengers due to the economic downturn, thus the yields take a battering.
The way the banks are going at the moment, this could get a lot worse.

How will this effect the airlines immediate future.

[PAXboy]

It's not just the companies immediately around LHR that support and benefit it. There is something called 'the M4 corridor' and international (and UK) companies have deliberately located themselves all along the M4 because of what lies at Junction 4. NO OTHER REASON.

Even our silly govts (plural!) won't allow EGLL to close as it would instantly devalue some 100 miles of business and residential property. Slough, Reading, Braknell, Newbury, Swindon, even Bristol. The M4 corridor is, effectively, an extension of West London. And then add in the M3 that connects Hampshire and all the way to the South Coast?

Yes, we need R3 + T6 but actually, 20 years ago we should have planned to layout not just R3 but R4 as a new cross runway (off set, of course not in the old place) and T7.

However ... I still maintain that we will not see R3 within the next ten years and that EGLL will continue to be marginalised in the world.

[Red Four]

I was reading on UK Airport News the following:

"The FT reports that BAA is claiming that the Commission’s planned break-up would be a ‘serious interference’ with its property rights under the European Convention on Human Rights."
Can't remember the BAA applying this logic to the properties under threat of CPO/seizure in the Sipson area.....

[AUTOGLIDE]

Quote:
building a runway on a heavily populated brown field

Never been there have you? It's NOT heavily populated believe me. Are we saying no one connects through Heathrow from the regions then? Perhaps we should just axe all domestic access to Heathrow?


Actually yes. I was born and lived most of my life there so I don't need to 'believe you', I know more about it than you ever will. I'm not just talking about the actual ground, the whole area is unsuitable for expansion. Some people do connect from the 'regions' to LHR (though number appears to be decreasing), more use the European hubs which do it far better. As for domestic access to LHR, from this part of the UK (North West) it would make very little difference. Smart business uses West Coast Rail line for London, my international customers come in direct to MAN or connect somewhere abroad.

[Skipness One Echo]

Well I don't live IN Sipson but I know the area well and it's a little island of nice houses sandwiched by an airport and some less than salubrious areas. I'm not unfamiliar with the issues....

Your point on connections works for Manchester but the forced train opton will make connecting passengers use KLM / Lufthansa / Air France and consequently see fewer jobs at Heathrow as the feed bleeds off abroad. It's much quicker to connect over KLM ex MAN / AMS than get the train to Heathrow and connect to BA or another British carrier.

What about GLA / EDI / NCL etc? They'll just connect abroad and STAR and BA will have no feed for their Heathrow long haul services and focus more of their operations abroad. I'm very concerned that people are very keen to play the green card on the day the UK is officially in recession.