Green-ing gone, green for Heathrow?

[jabird]

Looking like Patrick McLoughlin will replace Justine Greening in the transport job.

There always was a serious question mark over how the transport secretary could make a fair decision over Heathrow, when she had already been so partisan in her objection to a third runway.

It looks like she will be moved out of the way, on a one way ticket to somewhere unknown.

There's a lot of speculation about where the new guy stands on HS2 aswell, but I'll leave that for PTDRuNe.

[DaveReidUK]

Looking like Patrick McLoughlin will replace Justine Greening in the
transport job.

Maybe eventually, but I doubt very much in the imminent reshuffle.

With the government having now set up an "independent" commission to review airport capacity, replacing JG at this stage would send out the signal that the result of the review (i.e. recommending R3) is a foregone conclusion.

[adfly]

A promising and sensible move by the Govt(never thought I'd be saying this!).

[Dannyboy39]

Greening just been walking down Downing St. A sure sign that she's being moved.

Earlier rumours that Jeremy Hunt would be moved to transport - he's just moved to health instead of Andrew Lansley. A huge promotion for him considering the BSkyB scandal. One slimeball to another!

[DaveReidUK]

An equally significant move is that of Theresa Villiers, from Transport Minister with responsibility for aviation (and rail) to Northern Ireland Secretary.

[DaveReidUK]

Looking like Patrick McLoughlin will replace Justine Greening in the transport job.


Now confirmed. :\

[Tableview]

Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[DaveReidUK]

Notable also that the new Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, is on record as supporting a u-turn on Heathrow as recently as last week:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9499565/Another-Tory-minister-demands-u-turn-on-Heathrow.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9499565/Another-Tory-minister-demands-u-turn-on-Heathrow.html)

"Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland Secretary, made the call at a Cabinet meeting shortly before the summer recess. He fears that economic growth in Northern Ireland will be hit if Heathrow does not expand quickly.

Mr Paterson is the latest in a growing list of Conservatives urging David Cameron to drop his opposition to another runway at the London airport"

[adfly]

Always interesting to see all of these politicians moving from one role they know nothing about to another. What you really need is those who are experts on industry's, rather than the posh 'look at all my economics and politics degrees' types who have no experience of an actual industry, we would have a far better and more efficiently run country if that was the case! Anyway, political rant over the latest 'reshuffle' does seem to favour runway 3, however where is Patrick McLoughlin's constituency, just out of interest?

[Tableview]

Patrick McLoughlin's constituency is somewhere in rural Derbyshire - he happens to be MP for friends of mine who live near Buxton. They reckon he's 'not bad' but then for a politician that means he doesn't have to take his hat off to get under a door .

BBC News - Speaker John Bercow reprimands Chief Whip Patrick McLoughlin (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11937671)

[WHBM]

Well, not only has The Girlie gone from being Transport Secretary :D but has been moved to International Development Secretary.

That means she will need to take lots and lots of those nasty aeroplanes (presumably from Heathrow) to do her job. A bit of an eye-opener to her then on how the real world has to work. At least she'll build up to Gold on BA's Executive Club.

As she comes inbound early in the morning from another junket in Africa to determine what percentage of our Foreign Aid gifts will be permitted to end up in Swiss bank accounts, as she goes round and round in the Ockham Hold, she can stand up and make a cabin PA taking credit for all the timewasting and squandering of fuel that is going on for everyone in front of her because she was so opposed to sorting the problem out. Round we go again, everyone ........


Andy Atkins of Friends of the Earth claims that Justine Greening has been "shunted out of her transport job because of her opposition to a third runway at Heathrow".
No, Mr Tree-hugger, she went because she presided over the whole Heathrow runway issue becoming a constant sore and embarrassment to the government, didn't do anything about sorting it out, and then allowed the same to happen to the West Coast rail franchise, giving it to a much-despised franchisee that led to unprecedented complaints and petitions about that as well. Then there's the HS2 railway project, both stalled and has upset a significant number of marginal Conservative MPs. The list goes on.

[DaveReidUK]

Looks like the decks are being cleared within the DfT, too.

John Parkinson, Deputy Director of Aviation Policy is reportedly making way for Phil Graham, Deputy Director for High Speed Rail.

Might have interesting implications for both HS2 and Heathrow.

[Ernest Lanc's]

Boris is goint to stir the pot though..He is not a happy chappy and had come out fighting this morning.

[Artie Fufkin]

Always interesting to see all of these politicians moving from one role they know nothing about to another. What you really need is those who are experts on industry's, rather than the posh 'look at all my economics and politics degrees' types who have no experience of an actual industry, we would have a far better and more efficiently run country if that was the case!

Presumably you've never seen Yes Minister?

[PAXboy]

Jeremy Hunt is PROMOTED??? My what a good boy he has been. Just goes to show that some things never change. Party first, country last. :ugh:

[airsmiles]

So Putney Woman gets booted out from Transport. :D Next on my list is a Business Secretary who actually likes trade and talking to big nasty businesses.

[adfly]

Here comes Boris! BBC News - Boris Johnson's Heathrow warning after Justine Greening's move (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19475249)

[DaveReidUK]

An equally significant move is that of Theresa Villiers, from Transport Minister with responsibility for aviation (and rail) to Northern Ireland Secretary.

Villiers replacement at Transport is to be Simon Burns, MP for Chelmsford, whose parliamentary CV doesn't appear to show any previous aviation-related experience.

[Tableview]

Simon Burns, MP for Chelmsford, whose parliamentary CV doesn't appear to show any previous aviation-related experience.

Lack of appropriate experience in the field would seem to eminently qualify one for a cabinet position. An excellent choice.

[jabird]

He fears that economic growth in Northern Ireland will be hit if Heathrow does not expand quickly.

Surely economic growth in NI is much more hit by the double taxation on any internal flight to anywhere in the UK, not just LHR? Apart from the sole EWR exemption, any flight to anywhere is hit, when compared with an alternative from DUB.

BFS & BHD still have their link with LHR (for now). I'd be asking why there aren't better links in with other European hubs - NI is the inverse of many airports in Northern England.

[davidjohnson6]

jabird - what do you mean by double taxation in this instance ?

[jabird]

jabird - what do you mean by double taxation in this instance ?

Two doses of APD - one on outbound, the other on in. Compared to, say, a flight to cont. Europe, where there is only one dose of APD on the way out, and if taxed at all on the return, it is at a much lower rate.

Unlike, say, MAN or LBA, there is no option for business passengers to take the train to London from Belfast and be back home in time for tea!

[jabird]

There was some comment from Boris saying "it is utter madness building another runway right in the middle (sic) of west London".

I suggest most people here would counter with "it is utter madness building a new airport right in the middle of the Thames Estuary".

[Dannyboy39]

:ugh::mad::ugh: :mad:

BBC News - Heathrow: Howard Davies to chair independent review of airport capacity (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19484126)

How does it take 3 years for goodness sake?

[DaveReidUK]

How does it take 3 years for goodness sake?

Never heard of Parkinson's Law ?

Of course it has to take 3 years, so that it doesn't end up back in the "too difficult" tray before the next election. :O

[DaveReidUK]

I was wrong - the commission has already issued its recommendations:

http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/553/dfa/fdc/resized/howard-davies-meme-generator-extra-runway-to-be-built-at-tripoli-international-airport-d3e392.jpg?1346863893.jpg

[PAXboy]

BBC News - Heathrow: Government to study airport expansion plans (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19484126)
The commission will report after 2015.That is some VERY long grass indeed. Nothing changes in UK politics.

[Fairdealfrank]

Saw a kid kicking a can down the road yesterday. Thought to myself that this kid has a bright future running the European Central Bank. On further reflection, thought, no, the kid could have a fantastic future as a politician, not making decisions on Heathrow expansion.

Call-me-Dave's dithering on the Heathrow expansion issue is very reminiscent of Gordon Brown's inability to make a decision on having a general election back in 2007 soon after he suceeded Blair.

Had he done so, the third runway would now be under construction and November 2012 would more than likely be general election month.

By revoking Labour's decision on Heathrow, Call-me-dave revealed his inexperience: an experienced politician, knowing that Heathrow expansion is essential, would have let the decision stand and pointed any flak in Labour's direction.

Instead he has made himself look weak, indecisive, and intimidated by the likes of Boris, Greening and Zak Goldsmith (of all people!).

You couldn't make it up.

[Blinkz]

Step in the right direction but just crazy time scales. 3 years??

[Fairdealfrank]

Three weeks would be better, most of the work has been done, all they need to do is to collate it.

[Artie Fufkin]

BBC News - Heathrow: Howard Davies to chair independent review of airport capacity

How does it take 3 years for goodness sake?

Another person who hasn't watched Yes Minister!

One can almost hear Sir Humphrey responding to Jim Hacker asking how to defer a U turn until after the next election. "Well, one sets up a sub committee..."

Independent review? My arse!

[Skipness One Echo]

It might be useful. If Milliband and the Cooper-Balls' get back in, they are able to say "we reluctantly accept" this * cough "independent" review. He'd look weak by doing nought, no longer an option so we might actually see a fait accompli.

[Fairdealfrank]

Yes you're right, it's exactly "Yes Minister"!

[WHBM]

I thought the longstanding Humphrey in Downing Street was a cat.

Now that Cameron is seen to be a mouse, he won't last long.

[jabird]

One can almost hear Sir Humphrey responding to Jim Hacker asking how to defer a U turn until after the next election. "Well, one sets up a sub committee..."

My understanding from the UPPRuNe (UP for unprofessional politicians') is that after we've been speculating for years that Fantasy Boris Island and now Heathrow West are smokescreens for Heathrow, Heathrow is now a smokescreen for bringing in a bully boy to steamroller HS2 through. Note that Gillan has been shunted out of the way too.

Whatever the environmental arguments of these projects (you can make strong pro and con cases for both), if I was Osborne right now, I'd be asking why spend £34bn on a project that is at best not proven when BAA will build Heathrow R3 for "free"?

People say a third runway will take years - and HS2 won't?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "My understanding from the UPPRuNe (UP for unprofessional politicians') is that after we've been speculating for years that Fantasy Boris Island and now Heathrow West are smokescreens for Heathrow, Heathrow is now a smokescreen for bringing in a bully boy to steamroller HS2 through. Note that Gillan has been shunted out of the way too.

Whatever the environmental arguments of these projects (you can make strong pro and con cases for both), if I was Osborne right now, I'd be asking why spend £34bn on a project that is at best not proven when BAA will build Heathrow R3 for "free"?

People say a third runway will take years - and HS2 won't?"

Actually, it could be 2 projects: HS2 and Fantasy island.

Would also ask the question.

Why isn't it asked? - no experience of the real world, lack of any political "nous", being intimidated by the "teaboy" (Clegg), and running scared of the likes of Boris.

[dash6]

Heathrow was a dinosaur by the '70s. No room to expand,rubbish infrastructure,approaches over the City at low altitude. The bullet needs to be bitten.Boris Island,incorporating a tidal barrier and improved transport links Kent to East Anglian? Bin Heathrow now, it will have to be done eventually,sooner the cheaper.

[Skipness One Echo]

Heathrow was a dinosaur by the '70s. No room to expand,rubbish infrastructure,approaches over the City at low altitude. The bullet needs to be bitten.Boris Island,incorporating a tidal barrier and improved transport links Kent to East Anglian? Bin Heathrow now, it will have to be done eventually,sooner the cheaper.
Yes, I believe we have the money for that. Let me just look down the back of the couch. Oh wait.....

As to LHR being unfit, I agree, it was awful, allowed to go to rack and ruin. However much of it has been torn down since the millenium. T2 has gone, T1 is going, T5 is open and the new T2 is coming. By 2015, the vast majority will be 21st century facilities or refitted post millemium. You can't "bin Heathrow" until your replacement is up and running. As to being "cheaper", Fantasy Island is going to be built on European Labour rates somewhere off the coast, also inflicting noise on East London that had hitherto not been affected. That penny has yet to drop, that East London then gets all the noise West London loses. The approaches, whilst predominantly over West London, change direction with the wind. Of course no one has mentioned this to the good people of the East.
Nobody, but nobody has moved under the LHR flight path since 1947 without knowing there was a fricking airport outside Hounslow. Runway 3 is hardly ideal, but even the Green Tory, David Cameron, appears to have realised it is the only *realistic and affordable* option. Any fool (yes I mean you Boris!) can blah about a fantastic new airport far from population centres plugged into London, but let's be real. His role is pretty much to stand there and look pretty, the mayoralty is run by others for him. Beyond his writing career, Boris Johnson has never run anything more than a bath. His shadow cabinet career was a joke and the hard work for the Olympics was done by others, yet there was Bojo taking all the credit. I am no fan of Ken but that must hurt.

[DaveReidUK]

That penny has yet to drop, that East London then gets all the noise West London loses.

Well 30% of the time, that is - unless the earth starts rotating in the opposite direction and we get prevailing easterly winds. :*

[ETOPS]

Easterly ops at Heathrow can occur randomly with changing weather patterns but often get "stuck" when high pressure dominates. Over the years there have been times when 09L has featured in my briefings for days on end. Depending on the exact alignment of the new airport there will be areas of East London that could be very suprised at their exposure to aircraft in the future.

[WHBM]

Heathrow and Boris Island runways appear to be almost exactly in line, due east-west of one another, I make them 39 miles apart. The mid-point along this line (so when Heathrow is on westerlies this is what it will be like with Boris on easterlies) lies in the Thames between Canary Wharf and the O2, about 19 miles each way.

So if you go to Canary Wharf and look at the height of the overflying Heathrow traffic on westerlies, that is presumably where it will be when Boris Island is on easterlies. It's just where most traffic coming off Lambourne and Bovingdon is turned right onto long final. We live east of this point, further from Heathrow, and this traffic is certainly still prominent here.

The easterly track to Boris appears to descend from there over Woolwich, Bexleyheath, Dartford, and (particularly) Tilbury/Gravesend. However, Boris Island is portrayed as an unrestricted H24 airport, unlike Heathrow currently, with full parallel approaches.

From time to time Heathrow is on Westerlies while London City is on Easterlies, which leads to interesting separation over Waterloo as seen from the ground. The prospect of Boris on Easterlies when City is on Westerlies, however, seems even more of a challenge.

[I'm Off!]

Errr, not necessarily. That would pre-suppose that the chosen runway orientation for Boris Island or other estuary alternative was 09/27, far from certain. An adjustment to more SW/NE would alter flight paths and noise footprints.

[ETOPS]

And that would have the advantage of actually pointing into the prevailling wind!

[Dannyboy39]

On the subject of LCY and LHR flightpaths - when I was down at the Olympics Stadium a few weeks ago, LHR was landing on the 27L/R whilst LCY was departing on 27. Didn't realise how much seperation is needed on that "junction". All that, plus several commercial and police helicopters and a small advertising blimp - intense air activity in that part of London.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Heathrow was a dinosaur by the '70s. No room to expand,rubbish infrastructure,approaches over the City at low altitude. The bullet needs to be bitten.Boris Island,incorporating a tidal barrier and improved transport links Kent to East Anglian? Bin Heathrow now, it will have to be done eventually,sooner the cheaper."

Maybe, but it was the dinosaur, and remains the airport, that airlines and pax favour. Why do you think it runs at 99+% capacity and why do you think airlines pay millions for LHR slots?

Please return to the real world, there is no prospect of "binning" Heathrow.

[DaveReidUK]

Step in the right direction but just crazy time scales. 3 years??

Not necessarily.

From yesterday's DfT statement:


"the Commission will provide an interim report to the Government no later than the end of 2013 setting out:

its assessment of the evidence on the nature, scale and timing of the steps needed to maintain the UK’s global hub status; and
its recommendation(s) for immediate actions to improve the use of existing runway capacity in the next five years – consistent with credible long term options." [my emphases]
Assuming that "in the next five years" means over the course of that period, rather than doing nothing until 5 years has elapsed, it's not hard to work out what the recommendations are likely to be.

Aviation - News - Department for Transport (http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/statements/mcloughlin-20120907a/)

[Fairdealfrank]

Just a thought: the commission has to make recommendations for "immediate actions to improve the use of existing runway capacity" within one year.

Does this mean squeezing a quart out of a pint pot by ending segregated mode and rwy alternation at Heathrow and move to permanent all-day (everyday) mixed mode?

This would:
(1) increase available movements by 10-15%(?);
(2) do nothing to address congestion and delays;
(3) end the daily half-day of quiet for those under the flightpath.

It would also mean, ironically, that vocal opposition to airport expansion from miles away from Heathrow (Goldsmith, Greening, Johnson, etc.) would actually result in more noise for flightpath residents!

A spectacular own-goal if this the case!

[DaveReidUK]

Does this mean squeezing a quart out of a pint pot by ending segregated mode and rwy alternation at Heathrow and move to permanent all-day (everyday) mixed mode?

This would:
(1) increase available movements by 10-15%(?);
(2) do nothing to address congestion and delays;
(3) end the daily half-day of quiet for those under the flightpath.

The conventional wisdom is that full-time mixed mode would increase capacity by around 60,000 ATMs per year, which equates to 12.5% of the current limit. However we're told that such an increase would be contingent on airspace changes (but see below).

Whether this would or wouldn't reduce congestion and delays is a moot point. We're told that the object of the current mixed mode trials is to improve resilience, i.e. the airport's capability to recover from disruption, so presumably full mixed mode could provide more of the same, depending of course on how much of the increased capacity is absorbed by demand. Obviously if the scheduling limits were increased pro rata to the revised capacity, so that LHR was still operating at 99%, then congestion and delays would continue to be the norm.

But you're missing the point. The Commission, whose 3 or 4 members will be confirmed in the next week or so, will have fulfilled its obligations when it makes its recommendations for those "immediate actions".

It won't have any responsibility for implementing changes, and if any of its recommendations turn out to be infeasible (cf airspace design) or politically unacceptable (cf loss of respite for West London residents) then they will all be consigned to the "too difficult" tray and we'll be back to square one.

In other words, the Commission will have fulfilled its purpose - to give another year or so's breathing space - regardless of what conclusions it reaches.

[topoverhaul]

Mixed mode is needed now to help to alleviate the current arrival and departure delays, without deploying additional capacity. It is the wake vortex rules which are the current limiting factor, interleaving take offs and landings will be a major factor in reducing the continual waste of fuel involved in the stacking of arrivals throughout the day, a situation that the environmental lobby seems happy with as it is never mentioned by them.
In order to alleviate arrival noise, all the new technologies which are available should be deployed. A true 4D arrival planning should be instituted with EATs issued to aircraft to permit longitudinal holding if required. There is absolutely no need for arrivals to be directed to a 15 mile extended centre line over central London. There should be a fan of RNAV arrivals aiming at a final point at 5 miles with the spacing controlled by one of the available radar arrival sequencers. Indeed the opposite runway SIDs could be reversed to provide noise preferential arrivals, easy to achieve with current technology.
My impression is that these alleviations are not being opposed by the pilots or the operators but by those in charge of the ground environment who tend to resist anything which has a hint of deskilling.

[DaveReidUK]

Mixed mode is needed now to help to alleviate the current arrival and departure delays, without deploying additional capacity.

That sounds like the perfect description of a "lose-lose" scenario.

Delays are not the driver here - they are simply the expected and accepted consequence of scheduling at 99% of capacity for 16 hours of the day.

Nobody is going to propose a solution where the 60,000 additional slots generated per year are simply used as a buffer, without scheduling more movements.

That would certainly improve resilience and reduce delays, but would do nothing for capacity, while simultaneously upsetting large swathes of the West London population. That's not going to happen.

[PAXboy]

Indeed, DaveReidUK. The moment any more capacity is made available - by whatever means - then new slots will be created (and sold!) and the merry go round in the skies will continue.

I agree that NO ONE mentions this heinous waste of fuel, time and money, leave alone the pollution. Perhaps the NIMBYs cannot see further than their own back yard. ;)

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Indeed, DaveReidUK. The moment any more capacity is made available - by whatever means - then new slots will be created (and sold!) and the merry go round in the skies will continue.

I agree that NO ONE mentions this heinous waste of fuel, time and money, leave alone the pollution. Perhaps the NIMBYs cannot see further than their own back yard."

Exactly,the nature of a NIMBY is not to see beyond the backyard, nor above it for that matter.

As for the holier-than-thou greens, they may not even realise what's going on above, unless it can be taxed.