3rd Runway..is there airspace ?

[Bagso]

Can anybody confirm how capacity constrained the London TMA is ?

Various reports I have read sugest a 3rd runway at LHR would make little difference in terms of increasing capacity as the airspace is so full.

Whats the view of ATC personnel ?

Also appreciate it will never happen but would it not be better to close LGW. LCY LTN STN etc and just build 6 runways at LHR ? Surely this would be easier to control than having such a cockeyed system where everything is crossing in mid air ?

[Buster the Bear]

Lots of work going on in the background to increase the airspace capacity in and around London. There was a plan a couple of years back which went out to consultation, but I understand although these plans were delayed, their implementation will occur in the future?

[Dan Dare]

Bring back "Tunnels In The Sky" anyone?

[whitelighter]

Ahahahahahahahaha,

They can't get planning for the third runway - where the hell do you plan to put 4,5 and 6???

[On the beach]

Consultation = Inability to make a decision or "pussy-footing" as Boris would say. :E

[AdamFrisch]

LAX runs 4 parallel rwy's in a class B (to the ground) airspace much smaller than London's TMA, so any airspace problem is purely in the minds of legislators and/or ATC. Not only that, ATC at LAX have to contend with GA traffic in the very same airspace (which is not the case in London), but right next to it and even right above the rwy's (the VFR Mini Route) - also not the case in London. My approaches into Hawthorne are side-by-side with big iron 747's on final to 25L - nobody breaks a sweat. And the missed approach on 25L (left turn) takes the big iron right into class D and eventually into uncontrolled airspace, something you'd never see in a million years in Europe.

[Talkdownman]

Bring back "Tunnels In The Sky" anyone?
Then add a couple of big CBs...

[ZOOKER]

6 Runways?

IS THAT ALL ?

Didn't it have 12 at one stage?

[ZOOKER]

Talkdownman,
loving your work. ATCO 1 friend of mine was on the CCF simulation and said exactly that. Went very quiet.
Never mind eh?
EFD will sort it out. :E

[chevvron]

Tunnels in the Sky = The Beeker Plan = Dave Beech and ? who was the other guy? (had a gammy leg) Liked him, hated Dave.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<And the missed approach on 25L (left turn) takes the big iron right into class D and eventually into uncontrolled airspace, something you'd never see in a million years in Europe.>>

Thank God for that.

[Talkdownman]

Tunnels in the Sky = The Beeker Plan = Dave Beech and ? who was the other guy?
Alan Parker.
'It'll never work'. They were told that by many from Day 1. Huge waste of money. Next please...

[MONT BLANC]

Chevron,

I recollect - through the mists of time - two other people were involved in the 'Beeker Plan in the early days.

One was John Pemberton (gammy leg) I think, but also a really nice chap - John S****** - cannot recall his surname, only that the first letter began with an 'S'.

John Pemberton was an ATCO I, and the section in CAA House was - IMRC - CAP8, so John P was the head of section perhaps. I do remember meeting with them in their office in CAA House - or was it Spacehouse in those days.

I also recollect that Dave Beech and John S went off to the US, and did some work looking at Jacksonville, which they used as the model for CCF.

The simulations were tremendous fun.

My one abiding memory of Dave Beech was being trained by him me as an ASC (Assistant Sector Controller) on SFD/WOR wings: he writing levels on the paper strips with a fountain pen. Takes all sorts.

John Pemberton died a couple of years ago.

MB

[MONT BLANC]

Thanks Talkdownman :D

Alan Parker - the other half of Beeker. Alan was a very nice chap.

MB

[Bagso]

No GA in the London Airspace....!

My God what planet are you on ?

Northolt, Biggin, Blackbushe, Farnborough......Or did I imagine them.

Anyway back in the real world is there enough room OR NOT, does anybody have a sensible answer ?

[obwan]

Alan Parker, didn't he have a band? Or am I thinking of Alan Parsons? One for Zooker I feel.

[Brian 48nav]

John S***** - could that have been John Smeath?

Really nice man, ex RAF Canberra pilot, LL/LHR ATC,LATCC N Bank, sadly died of a heart attack in 1988 (IIRC- 'Window Job' will know), aged only 52 or 53.

BW

[MONT BLANC]

Spot on Brian. Wasn't he on your watch as well?

A wise chap who was thoroughly decent.

MB

[AdamFrisch]

I should have said London Class A. No VFR within miles unless it's the odd SVFR. So yes, if legislators thinks it's "too crowded" and unmanageable and oh so close to max capacity, maybe they should have a little look around how the rest of the world conducts mixed air traffic into a much smaller airspace.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<No VFR within miles unless it's the odd SVFR.>>

You plainly have knowledge of the London Area. There is LOTS of VFR traffic within a few miles of Heathrow.

[anotherthing]

Adam,

You are conveniently neglecting to mention Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, London City, Farnborough, Southampton and others.

Heathrow on its own would not be a problem, however there are numerous other very busy airports in close proximity. It is this fact that makes the airspace so complex and, dare I say it, close to saturation at times (though it still has some way to go to get to 2007 levels thanks to the ongoing economic downturn).

There are no doubt much better ways to use the airspace, there is a huge ongoing project at the moment looking into how to do so. The interaction between all the the major airports is what complicates matters.

Until such changes take place, then I personally think that a 3rd runway at Heathrow is smoke and mirrors. It certainly won't increase capacity to the magnitude that some folks say (200,000 plus extra movements per year!).

Of course the OP gave a radical solution - shut the other airports. Not going to happen... neither is the idea of using Gatwick for southbound departures, Stansted/Luton for northbound and Heathrow solely for east and westbound... but if you did that, it would cut out a hell of a lot of crossing SIDS and therefore complexity!

LAX and the surrounding airspace is a totally different proposition to EGLL... the LTMA needs to be updated, and it will be, however as well as coming up with the clever ideas, NATS then has to get it past public consultation, not an easy task.

[AdamFrisch]

Well, the question was in regards to Heathrow and the 3rd rwy, in all fairness.

In that class A environment with virtually no other air traffic than known IFR, then it's nowhere near handling as much traffic as, ORD, JFK or LAX. I'm not talking landings, but real air traffic. Most of the example class B is smaller than the class A in London, filled with mixed traffic of all kinds (no convenient glide free rules to keep the small fry out of your hair like in London) etc. So why is it that this is presented as somehow this gargantuan skillful task by the almost superhumanly competent airspace handlers in Europe, when much more traffic is quietly handled without chest thumping daily elsewhere? Heck, even Sydney deals with it all in class D, as far as I know.

The airspace is not overcrowded in class A and could easily accommodate a 3rd rwy or a 4th. Even at 4 rwy's, they'd be handling less real traffic than LAX. Sure they might have to change some procedures, but that's all doable. As for the adjoining airports in the London area, yes, it's crowded. But no more than JFK/La Guardia/Newark, or LAX/Long Beach/Burbank/John Wayne. But I bet the first thing they'll propose is to expand class A, so the get rid of those pesky unwanted little small airplanes with the amateurs in them and the annoying operators who are not paying into the system, right? If you can't cope with it, just force it out. That seems to be the MO here.

There's an age old Euro tendency of thinking we're superior and more skilled than everybody else and when that's proven not to be the case, we legislate the problem away rather than dig in and step up to the challenge. Cradle of civilisation and all that. I say this as a European, not an American.

[Bagso]

Many Thanks "Anotherthing"

That was my assumption from "outside the fence".

My comment re 6 runways was mischevious, but surely to have so many airports in in such close proximity restricts the total number of movements that even an extra runway at LHR doesnt solve..

Would it not simply dilute rather than expand what is already in situ.

I just wondered as you say if there is some contingency to resolve the ATM issue at the sametime as laying plans for a 3rd RW, many observers who support RW3 seem totally blind to the fact that the airspace is so congested.

When BAA owned LHR LGW and STN (assuming it goes) then there could be a case for reducing slots at one airport and increasing at another, but by the end of 2012 we could end up with every single major airport having a different owner, so who is going to give up their slice of the action ?

Would /Could movements at LGW LCY or LTN be restricted to ensure LHR as the main gateway gets the full benefit of an additional runway ?

Now even Southend is in the mix......

To me this just seems total madness.

[riverrock83]

According to 2010 statistics, if you combine the London airports they are the busiest set of airports in the world (by pax - I haven't checked per movements):
World's busiest city airport systems by passenger traffic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_busiest_city_airport_systems_by_passenger_traffic)

[Sir George Cayley]

Approach operations to Heathrow are constrained by inter alia the Cranford Agreement.

An increase in capacity would be achieved by allowing independent mixed mode ops on both the north and south runways. Another capacity gain would be an extension in the hours of operations; even allowing low QC numbered a/c to land later/earlier might help.

A third runway could accept appropriate a/c from existing stacks. RNAV (GNSS) SBAS APV operated to RNP 3' 6" would be the enabler.

Lastly 4D trajectory flight management would help dovetail arrivals with stand availability.

"Ladies and Gentleman, due to favourable tailwinds over the Atlantic I'm pleased to tell you that, despite our departure from (K*** or C***) being 15 minutes behind schedule we'll have you at destination 45 mins early"

"Ladies and Gentlemen, as you will no doubt have noticed we are currently in a stack to the west of London. This is due to ATC delays caused by early morning congestion. So sit back and enjoy the rest of the flight."

Ladies and Gentlemen, from the flight deck may I add my warm welcome to London Heathrow. Due to the outbound a/c on our stand not quite being ready to depart we have been asked to wait here for a few minutes. Therefore I'd ask you to remain seated until the fasten seat belts sign is turned off. Crew, thanks for a wonderful flight, cabin doors to Manuel and cross dress."

Ladies and Gentlemen, as we pull onto stand can I repeat my welcome to London where the local time is 09.15 our scheduled arrival time. Thank you for choosing to fly BA (even though there's no-one else on this route) and wish you a very good morning."


Well Nigel, that went well don't you think? Yes boss, but if we'ed adjusted our flight to arrive on slot we would of used 3 tonnes less fuel.:ugh:

SGC

[DaveReidUK]

Approach operations to Heathrow are constrained by inter alia the
Cranford Agreement.

No.

The Cranford Agreement has not existed for the last couple of years or so, although its legacy (i.e. the asymmetric easterly runway layout) will continue to constrain operations until, we're told, 2014 at least.

[Spitoon]

Lots of work going on in the background to increase the airspace capacity in and around London. There was a plan a couple of years back which went out to consultation, but I understand although these plans were delayed, their implementation will occur in the future?So, let me get this right.....

There was a proposal which went out to consultation and, as I recall, was objected to by many people on many different grounds and then 'withdrawn' in some way to get it out of the public eye. And Buster says that the plans were only 'delayed' and will happen in the future.

Which does make one wonder what the point of the consultation was. Is it just something that's done so that someone can put a tick in the box before going ahead regardless?

Or is it something that the regulators insist on before being told what will happen by the Government of the day based on whatever decision is calculated to win them the most votes?

The trouble with consultations involving aviation and a number of other industries is that the topic is highly emotive and there is no way to please everybody or, some regulators would have it, address all concerns that are raised. And the valid issues raised by professionals are often given no greater credibility that those raised by total crackpots. Whether any good comes of such consultations is arguable; the huge cost of running a public consultation, which ultimately has to be paid by someone, is not.

Returning to the original question, from what I know - although I've never worked in the London TMA - the airspace constraints that have been mentioned by some other posters will be difficult to overcome without a significant change to some of the widely held principles and/or freedoms claimed by some people. Maybe a more significant problem is the limited gains in movements that a third runway would be likely to provide - something that in my experience is not understood by the layperson.

And, finally, although it's a good while since I transited through or travelled to the UK via London, it seems to me that it's the ground infrastructure that cannot support many more pax.

[118.70]

As BAA pulled the planning application for the extra taxiways because they did not want to confuse it with the Operational Freedom Trials, can I assume that the extension of the Op Freedom Trials pushes the civil works to exploit the Cranford Agreement abolition even further into the future........

[Bagso]

the airspace constraints that have been mentioned by some other posters will be difficult to overcome without a significant change to some of the widely held principles and/or freedoms claimed by some people. Maybe a more significant problem is the limited gains in movements that a third runway would be likely to provide - something that in my experience is not understood by the layperson.


Would there not have to be a cut in slots elsewhere ?

How does this work ?

I assumed that when BAA owned LHR LGW and STN there was an element of slot juggling, now all the airports are all owned by different operators airlines at say LGW who do not have service or partnership with LHR are not going to give up slots are they?

[DaveReidUK]

As BAA pulled the planning application for the extra taxiways because they did not want to confuse it with the Operational Freedom Trials, can I assume that the extension of the Op Freedom Trials pushes the civil works to exploit the Cranford Agreement abolition even further into the future........

Correct.

As I understand it, the additional access/exit taxiway works will be done at the same time as the planned resurfacing of the southern and northern runways (2013 and 2014, respectively), unless anyone knows better.

[Married a Canadian]

According to 2010 statistics, if you combine the London airports they are the busiest set of airports in the world (by pax - I haven't checked per movements):
World's busiest city airport systems by passenger traffic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Passenger numbers don't always equate to number of aircraft in the sky (Heathrow being a prime example..not even in the top 10 for aircraft movements worldwide but in the top 3 passenger list).

Whilst I agree the airspace over the SE is congested I agree with other posters that it will take a LOT to change it as there are too many conflicting interests.

It seems to get a lot of people's backs up on PPRUNE..but the US does seem to manage congested airspace a little bit easier than the Brits (other issues aside). Los Angeles has already been mentioned with Van Nuys and LAX operation side by side....probably close to 900 000 movements a year between the two. New York should be the prime example. JFK, Newark, La Guardia and Teterboro....over one million aircraft a year....operating within approximately 25 square miles of each other and all serving a different purpose (international, domestic, combination, GA etc).
Why can't we use that example to help over the South East...especially given that airports like Stansted and Luton are quieter than LGA and EWR and are relatively further away from Heathrow than the New York airports are from each other?

Please don't mention "safety concerns" because it seems safe enough for most major airline carriers...including our flagship British one.

[IrritatedofSwanwick]

I think 'Married a Canadian' maybe onto something.

Let's base an LTMA redevelopment plan on the NY TRACON. We could give it a natty three letter acronym (I think 'CCF' has a cool ring to it), but to make it simple to understand in layman's terms we could refer to 'tunnels in the sky'.

[Bagso]

Hang on.....

LGW is closer than 25 miles to LHR as is LTN as is LCY as is Biggin as is Farnborough as is White Waltham as is....Blackbush etc etc

Surely all blocks of airspace are unique and what about the mix of traffic therein , it is impossible to compare LAX with say the London TMA ?:ugh:

[Dan Dare]

If I recall: tunnels in the sky was deemed inappropriate with the changeable weather on this isle, but I still think we should try again - if for no other reason than the juvenile acronym which has always put a smile on my face. The scientists seem to be insisting it's a good idea again because it has always worked on their fast-time simulator.

[zkdli]

Hi Adam,
As a not very frequent user of LAX airspace (in the back usually) I have only ever been there when it is 10/10 blue and atc are using visual separations. What is it like when there is no vsiaul seps and everything is IFR IMC?

ZKDLI

[Married a Canadian]

LGW is closer than 25 miles to LHR as is LTN as is LCY as is Biggin as is Farnborough as is White Waltham as is....Blackbush etc etc

Surely all blocks of airspace are unique and what about the mix of traffic therein , it is impossible to compare LAX with say the London TMA ?

Don't compare then...how about just learn from them. I was merely making the point that New York has 3 MAJOR airports within 25 miles of each other (and if we want to be picky I am just guessing that LGA, EWR and JFK are a wee bit busier than LTN and LC and KB included). They have a system in place that manages to make it work. Is there nothing in that system that can't help control traffic in the SE. Nothing that might make the controllers job a bit easier? Is it complex? Yes. Does it go t***s up every so often? You bet...but at least there is something there to manage capacity. The debate in airspace capacity comes up every so often but you have to find a way to increase that capacity. Flexibility should come from lots of different areas...looking overseas should be one.

Yes the airspace the airspace over the SE has its own set of challenges and yes it is congested...but by saying it can't be done because it is unique basically ignores any other congested airspace the world over.

[Not Long Now]

The biggest difference I found in NY area was that inbounds were down at 6000 feet or so still with 80 to 100 miles to run. That's obviously a bit different to the LTMA, not that it couldn't work though. Although the Dutch might have to do most of the sequencing for us, and it probably wouldn't help our giant CO2 footprint reduction masterplan. It's not just how stupidly close you can build your airports, it's what's around them too.

[118.70]

As I understand it, the additional access/exit taxiway works will be done at the same time as the planned resurfacing of the southern and northern runways (2013 and 2014, respectively), unless anyone knows better. I would have thought doing anything for Cranford in 2013 would be pushing it in view of all the rigmarole of Environmental Impact Assessments and consultation....

However, I guess that most of the works would be in connection with the northern runway, so 2014 might work.

Incidentally, has the link 60 Grass Area 6C taxiway been done yet ?

The proposed additional link between Alpha and Bravo Taxiways would be used as additional holding areas for aircraft waiting to taxi onto the Terminal 5 apron, as it would allow a second aircraft to overtake one nearer to Terminal 5 without the nearer aircraft having to move. This situation would occur when the stand allocated to the second aircraft becomes free before the stand is available for the leading aircraft.

[AdamFrisch]

Zkdli - I wouldn't know - I'm not even instrument rated yet! But I do fly a lot in the LA basin and my mechanic and IR instructor is based at Hawthorne, which is just right next to LAX. So I'm there all the time. I swoop under the Bravo for the approach (2000ft ceiling before it goes all the way to the ground) and then we line up on approach side by side with the LAX arrivals. Works like a charm, but there isn't much room for error. Your right wing is literally running down the line of Bravo airspace. On the way back I get the Mini-Route at 2500ft above LAX just for kicks. HHR issues you as squawk, talk to LAX tower, get a clearance and off you go right on top of the tower.

Married a Canadian - I agree with everything you say. It's time to stop being so prissy about the airspace and the workload. It's not actually that bad when it comes to movements compared to many other places. And I personally think London's TMA should become B airspace and not exclude anyone. Or stay A, but have corridors separated from IFR traffic for transition VFR.

Anyway, in 50 years time there won't be any controllers or airspace. We'll all be doing it ourselves with ADS-B and radar feeds piped to the aircraft.:}

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Or stay A, but have corridors separated from IFR traffic for transition VFR.>>

Which is what happens, except the clockwork mice are under radar control! Several airfields within the London Control Zone have free lanes too.

[AdamFrisch]

Heathrow - There are the helicopter routes over the Thames and then there's a SVFR clearance over Ascot, right? But as far as I know, there is no way of transitioning anywhere else. I could be wrong - it's been a while since I flew in London.

My point being is that by stepping down to a less restrictive airspace generally, transitions can be achieved anywhere and/or when traffic permits. This helps everyone, even IFR traffic.

[twentypoint4]

When I flew into LAX earlier this year it seemed like we were on a closing heading for one of the westerly runways ever since flying over Vegas, and joined final approach at least 50 miles east of LAX. How does that work?

I'm a controller myself here in England and have often wondered about the differences in procedures and the way it's all done in the States. Forgetting the congestion within the US TMA's, my guess is that because of the very large, fairly empty, distances between the TMA's you can arrange/sequence the traffic much further out, plus design the procedures with a lot more freedom. Next time I'm near San Diego I'd love to pop in to SoCal Tracon and see how you guys do it.

My thoughts are that there are just too many regionals here in England, getting in the way of sequencing the London traffic farther out. Plus obviously the Paris/Amsterdam/Brussels/Manchester TMA's all fairly close by. Obviously this shows the regional's have enough traffic to get in the way, which is great, but they're all just a wee bit too densely packed here in little Blighty.

The messiness of the LTMA frightens me sometimes. Me reckons it would be one all mighty re-jig needed to fit in procedures for a third Heathrow runway.

[chevvron]

Course now if they re-opened Wisley instead of having the third runway actually at Heathrow, they could utilise airspace which is presently un-regulated and 'close' Mig Alley.
There's already a motorway linking both airfields after all.

[soaringhigh650]

But I bet the first thing they'll propose is to expand class A, so the get rid of those pesky unwanted little small airplanes with the amateurs in them and the annoying operators who are not paying into the system, right? If you can't cope with it, just force it out. That seems to be the MO here.

Yeah, and this appears to be the attitude that winds me up bigtime. There really is no need for such a huge amount of en-route airspace to be Class A.

Look at the Class A airway going from Southampton to Jersey as an example - it is often empty at say FL35-FL55 but you need a $20,000 IR to enter that piece of airspace.

[hangten]

Heathrow - There are the helicopter routes over the Thames and then there's a SVFR clearance over Ascot, right? But as far as I know, there is no way of transitioning anywhere else. I could be wrong - it's been a while since I flew in London.

Indeed, wrong.

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-CFCB9C0159CA1CF30A8521A2922136E4/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_AD_2_EGLL_3-2_en_2012-01-12.pdf

The biggest difference I found in NY area was that inbounds were down at 6000 feet or so still with 80 to 100 miles to run. That's obviously a bit different to the LTMA, not that it couldn't work though.

Not really in keeping with a continuous descent approach though surely? Leveling out at a low level and continuing for a long distance must be terrible for fuel efficiency. I'm interested to know if the FAA even have this on their radar? (Excuse pun.)

It's time to stop being so prissy about the airspace and the workload. It's not actually that bad when it comes to movements compared to many other places.

I'm not sure many here have disagreed with you as such, and apart from some willy waving statistics the London TMA, movements are still well down on 2007 or 8. Build the tarmac and we can make it work, and safely squeeze the best out of it. It's what we do. There is a LOT more sky up there than tarmac down here, and to answer the OP question, yes, there is the airspace. It may involve some moving of routes, holds etc. but you would have to build a LOT of runways before there wasn't a solution. Unfortunately all of this needs consultation...

Which brings me on to... What London needs for aviation and what London gets for it's residents will be two incredibly different things. A society that respects the rights of all it's members cannot easily replicate anything that can be done in places elsewhere (ahem, China; or even the US) and this is for the good of all, despite the obvious downside.

The discussion about airspace capacity in London demonstrates all that is good about the UK. Everybody has their say and everybody has the right to an opinion. We need aviation expansion for the good of the country though, and so let's hope the best compromise is reached sooner rather than later.

And I personally think London's TMA should become B airspace and not exclude anyone.

Class D anyone?

[Sir George Cayley]

I'll see your D and raise you an E !

SGC

[Glamdring]

I'll see your D and raise you an E !

...or "Tesco Value Airspace" as a certain NATS college instructor calls it :ok:

[On the beach]

Well, a third runway is really going to make Heathrow a world class airport, unlike some of these:

http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/travel/the-new-generation-of-airports/2012/08/30/b7921f54-e321-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html?goback=%2Egde_60803_member_157736898 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/travel/the-new-generation-of-airports/2012/08/30/b7921f54-e321-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html?goback=%2Egde_60803_member_157736898 )

OTB

[Lon More]

Bring back "Tunnels In The Sky" anyone?
AKA Combined Control Function.

There was a model of the airspace at Farnborough back in the 1990s. Lots of little plastic tubes looking like a Gordian Knot.I was stood looking at it with an American friend, when the NATS person we had been talking to rushed off to greet some visiting Arab.
i"We used that acronym in "Nam" my American friend said. "Stood for Collosal Cluster F***k"


Not a lot had changed I think.

[ZOOKER]

I think it was Central Control Function, Lon,
Worked splendidly until someone mentioned Cbs with TSGR. Then it went tits-up, and pear-shaped, very quickly.

[Lon More]

It wasn't my mess Zooker. We would just have had to contend with the extra workload it would dump on adjacent Centres.
We studied part of it on a Safety Evaluation Course. It was a large number of mid-airs waiting to happen.

[obwan]

I really don't know why there is all this discussion about a third runway at Heathrow because in all probability it will not happen. The greatest obstacle to it happening is the procrastination and total incompetence of the political parties in this country. The latest runway capacity study which has just been announced is not due to report until 2015 and I am sure that will be extended 6 months before it is due to report. There will then follow a "consultation " period of at least 3 years. If it is decided that yes Heathrow does need a third runway then a public enquiry will be set up and that will take another 5 years to come to a decision. If the go ahead is given then the European Court of Human Rights will probably get involved and don't forget Swampy and his chums. So as you can see quite a lot of people contributing to this thread, myself included , will be pushing up daisies long before a drop of concrete has been poured.:D

[soaringhigh650]

With the UK government going through rounds of beaurocracy of trying to decide what to do, followed by rounds of beaurocracy of trying to do it, billions would be spent and nothing would be finished in my lifetime.

By then many developing countries would have built hundreds of airports and runways.

Just look at Crossrail as an example. At project conceived in the 1980s and is still under construction. :E