LHR given permission to build 3rd runway? [Archive]

underfire

15th Oct 2016, 08:13

I find this difficult to believe.

"The government is set to give both Gatwick and Heathrow permission to build a new runway, according to a construction news website.

New Civil Engineer says it understands that permission will be given straight away for Heathrow to build a third runway with Gatwick allowed to expand within the next five years, when a decision is announced - something that is expected to happen by next Tuesday.

The website, dedicated to news in the construction and civil engineering industries, says Birmingham Airport is also to be encouraged to advance its own proposals for an extra runway.

Gatwick Airport Ltd (GAL) has already signalled its intention to press ahead with building a second runway even if Heathrow is given permission because it does not believe Heathrow can deliver."

Read more at Government 'set to give both Gatwick and Heathrow permission for new runway' | Crawley News (http://www.crawleynews.co.uk/government-set-to-give-both-gatwick-and-heathrow-permission-for-new-runway/story-29799346-detail/story.html#4843x79QvEUdD7Dt.99)

DaveReidUK

15th Oct 2016, 08:29

I find this difficult to believe.

Then don't. As of now, it hasn't been.

Super VC-10

15th Oct 2016, 10:35

But if they do, it's a sensible decision.

Basil

15th Oct 2016, 10:45

Extra lanes on motorways and parking facilities at terminals to cope with increased traffic?

canberra97

16th Oct 2016, 01:19

I think we should all wait till Tuesday otherwise it's all speculation regardless of what's in the media, btw the Crawley News got this story from the Cilvil Engineer website when it was released to the press last week so still not exactly 100% fact untill an official statement from the Government although personally I hope it's true.

anothertyke

16th Oct 2016, 09:32

In any case the phraseology is quite misleading. The imminent hurdle is that the Government will announce its preferred scheme. This is Bechers Brook on the second circuit of Aintree.

tibbs87

16th Oct 2016, 14:24

How could Birmingham have a second runway? The last time I looked, the airport is surrounded by urban sprawl, unless they build a runway to the south, with a lengthy taxiway connection? And if they tried that you'd get a lot of objections from the local community, as the northern flight path would probably go over the community of Sheldon. :ugh:

Maybe they should consider developing Coventry airport as a relief airport for Birmingham?

Trinity 09L

16th Oct 2016, 15:10

Tibbs.
The same reasons apply to R3 at LHR, but also include a diversion M25 and M4, the A4, and local feeder roads, energy plant, detention centre, hotels etc and of course housing. The whole of the UK will give a subsidy in the form of no tax as it will all be "debt finance".:uhoh:

canberra97

16th Oct 2016, 15:15

Trinity 09L

I don't think the plans for R3 include a diversion of the M25 or M4 only a tunnel over the M25 and a realignment of the junction of the M25 eastbound to the M4 the rest I agree with.

Trinity 09L

16th Oct 2016, 15:29

Canberra 97
The plan is for the main M25 four carriageways north & south are to go into a tunnel. The slip roads to accessing and leaving the M4 will have to be re-aligned. When northbound traffic leaves the tunnel the incline will increase from below current ground level therefore increasing the climb to clear the M4. Any HGV's grinding to a halt in a traffic holdup will slow the flow, as occurs now. The two standard diversion routes A4 and A3044 will be altered to accommodate the extended Terminal 5 which goes west towards the M25.
All described in the photo montage supplied by LHR, but the above is not being paid for by LHR, neither the impact of removing all the spoil by road.:uhoh:

Walnut

16th Oct 2016, 17:54

Most of these major schemes do a cost benefit analysis, Of course improved air-links are important but the M25 and its dislocation for a long period must be far more important to the UK than a marginal improvement to the UK air links, after all most of the extra pax and freight for R3 will have to travel along this road link

Trinity 09L

17th Oct 2016, 17:10

Cost benefit analysis is unlikely to include the disruption cost on movement of road traffic whilst construction takes place, and also the original cost of road expansion that has taken place and will now be removed to satisfy R3.

rowly6339

17th Oct 2016, 19:14

A PM with common sense? i do hope this is true.

PAXboy

17th Oct 2016, 20:00

Why does anyone think this bunch of politicians is going to be any better with a policy on air transport, than any other bunch in the last (say) 40 years?

Torquelink

18th Oct 2016, 14:59

Where will BA's Waterworld go? . . .

01475

18th Oct 2016, 16:27

A PM with common sense? i do hope this is true.
Apparently she bottled it.

Decision next year after more consultation. Spineless moron :-(

Airports expansion decision 'next year' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37692903)
A final decision on whether to expand Heathrow or Gatwick will not be taken for another year, it has emerged.
Prime Minister Theresa May has told Cabinet colleagues in a letter that a ruling would be made in the winter of 2017-18.

Heathrow Harry

18th Oct 2016, 16:44

A final decision on whether to expand Heathrow or Gatwick will not be taken for another year, it has emerged.

Prime Minister Theresa May has told Cabinet colleagues in a letter that a ruling would be made in the winter of 2017-18.

A Cabinet sub-committee will reveal its preferred option next week and a "full and fair" public consultation will follow.
Expanding Heathrow has been strongly opposed by some cabinet ministers. After next week's meeting, ministers will be allowed to make their own views known in a break with convention. However, they will have to ask the prime minister's permission, and will not be allowed to criticise the government in the Commons nor to "actively campaign" against the government. Number 10 would not comment as to whether or not MPs would be able to vote freely on the matter. Allowing ministers to speak out could avert the possibility of resignations from Cabinet.

Earlier, Theresa May told ministers at Tuesday's Cabinet meeting that a decision on increasing airport capacity in the South East had been "delayed for too long" and that it was important to now take a decision "in the national interest", her spokeswoman said.

The nine members of the airports sub-committee do not include Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, whose Uxbridge and South Ruislip seat is close to Heathrow, Putney MP Justine Greening or any other minister representing a London constituency. Mrs May's spokeswoman said the decision to give ministers a limited period to voice their personal views was a "mature, common-sense approach reflecting the fact that many ministers have long-held views and that ministers are also MPs and some have specific constituency issues that they have to address".

As many as 60 Tory backbenchers could vote against expansion at Heathrow, where options include building a third runway, or lengthening one of the existing runways.
Zac Goldsmith, the Tory MP for Richmond Park, has vowed to resign from the Commons if the government approves a Heathrow expansion.

The Evening Standard reported (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/tories-in-revolt-over-heathrow-a3372236.html) on Tuesday that the local Conservative party would back Mr Goldsmith if he stood for re-election as an independent.
Airlines and business groups favour expansion of Heathrow, which offers far more direct connections than Gatwick and handles much more freight.
A final decision on which London airport to expand has been years in the making.

In 2009, former prime minister David Cameron pledged that there would be no new runway at Heathrow. In July 2015, the Airports Commission (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33340565) chaired by Sir Howard Davies backed a new third runway at Heathrow, but did not rule out the option of expanding Gatwick. Mr Cameron had promised a decision by the end of last year on whether to build a new runway at Heathrow.

T250

18th Oct 2016, 16:53

Back to square one! :E

Barling Magna

18th Oct 2016, 17:01

Theresa May.............. or May not.

Another bloomin' Tory unable to make an unpopular decision.

PAXboy

18th Oct 2016, 17:02

That's sooo funny. Did I say something about politicians 4 posts back?

Heathrow Harry

18th Oct 2016, 17:02

Another bloomin' Tory who wants to be re-elected.....................

A320ECAM

18th Oct 2016, 17:15

Why does it take this country so long to decide on anything?

I'm certain by the time LHR has built a new runway, Singapore or Beijing will have built ten!

Richard Taylor

18th Oct 2016, 17:28

It's now been kicked into such long grass you can't even see the tail of an A380.

AerRyan

18th Oct 2016, 18:23

Wow:ugh:

Just speechless, not the time to be stifling the economy of Britain into the future.

Trash 'n' Navs

18th Oct 2016, 18:32

Oh dear... this news isn't really unexpected unless you don't understand national infrastructure planning approvals.

The announcement today just outlines the process to be followed by HMG.

Once they announce their preferred option, it consults on it, then publishes a National Policy Statement, which then needs to be approved by Parliament "next winter". Heathrow would only then apply for planning permission under the framework (& support) of Government policy.

I believe the AC set out this planning route so it should've been expected.

adfly

18th Oct 2016, 19:12

Jesus Christ, you honestly couldn't make it up!

litefoot1

18th Oct 2016, 19:36

Embarrassing news. Just embarrassing.

Just build a third (and a fourth) and get it over and done with!

dsc810

18th Oct 2016, 20:46

@A320Ecam
People and things in the way:to put it simply lots of them....so a lot of people are going to be annoyed about any proposal whether it is for an airport or a new road/bypass because it affects them adversely and its going to cost a great deal of money to move or placate them.
The UK is the most densely populated country in Europe. France has the same population in twice the land area.
Also the current legal framework give those aggrieved a lot of scope to make trouble whether that is inside parliament or outside.
I've done it myself - we had a local planning dispute going for 10 years for a 5 acre plot - just continue to moan and complain and argue endlessly, it went to judicial review, up to the local gov minister, round and round again.

Yes we used to do things like the Chinese when we built railways and canals and yes we could do it again: as follows:
1. Abolish all judicial review processes and any rights to question all and any Government decisions.
2. Abolish any duties on the government to "consult" various groups.
2. Abolish all right to compensation. Look how wartime legislation gave HMG a head start to 'create' Heathrow as it became by edict rather than actually have to "pay" landowners to buy the land plot by plot.
3. Abolish all H&Safety, Human Rights Acts and employment protection legislation.
4. Remove the right to vote from women - they are the main activists and complainers about usually everything.

edi_local

18th Oct 2016, 21:03

Wow:ugh:

Just speechless, not the time to be stifling the economy of Britain into the future.
This government seem to be incredibly short sighted anyway. Handling of recent events seems to just confirm that they are out to do as much deliberate damage as possible to the economy but for what reason I'm not sure.

As a side note, with a dramatic fall in the number of European flights using London airports surely coming in the next few years, is there really going to be much need for any new runway? There is no chance the likes of LH will need 30+ slots per day at LHR when all the banking stuff moves to Frankfurt for a start and the various other EU airlines, including BA won't be shuttling business workers around anywhere near as much as they currently do simply because there won't be as much attraction to London, so a lot of space for Long Haul will free up with the current setup anyway. Perhaps that is thier plan?

01475

19th Oct 2016, 00:06

3. Abolish all H&Safety, Human Rights Acts and employment protection legislation.
4. Remove the right to vote from women - they are the main activists and complainers about usually everything.
Christ almighty.

If anyone needs disenfranchised it's angry misogynists.

And what's not being allowed to kill your workers and preventing gay bashing got to do with spineless politicians not being able to make a decision?

Heathrow Harry

19th Oct 2016, 07:19

Oh they can takea DECISION - but all the other stuff can be used to stop amything

Look at one of the forthcoming oil drilling (not fraccing) sites in S England - it took ten years to get planning approval...........

Andy_S

19th Oct 2016, 11:38

As a side note, with a dramatic fall in the number of European flights using London airports surely coming in the next few years, is there really going to be much need for any new runway? There is no chance the likes of LH will need 30+ slots per day at LHR when all the banking stuff moves to Frankfurt....

Opinion masquerading as fact......

Heathrow Harry

19th Oct 2016, 11:42

I guess you could ask why we need so many flights to New York every day flown by twins............ repalce them with A 380's and you'd free a few slots

canberra97

19th Oct 2016, 12:20

It's not all about slots as you well know it's all about Heathrow being totally congested and maxed out be it on the ground or in the air, just look at what happens when even one runway is closed its total meltdown it's because of situations like this that R3 is needed and was needed along time ago.

Expatrick

19th Oct 2016, 14:38

Why does it take this country so long to decide on anything?

I'm certain by the time LHR has built a new runway, Singapore or Beijing will have built ten!

According to the 'pedia the Govt of the day started the HS2 process in January 2009 & the Sec.of State gave a decision to proceed in January '12, so it can be done. Certainly HS2 has a significant environmental impact & substantial costs - or am I missing something?

PAXboy

19th Oct 2016, 14:51

I don't think they've actually started building HS2? Certainly ther protests continue.

This week, there must be champagne corks popping in AMS, CDG, FRA as well as at Waterside and many UK regional fields who want to keep their connecting flights.

Expatrick

19th Oct 2016, 15:04

edi_local

19th Oct 2016, 17:27

Opinion masquerading as fact......
We shall see. With the way things are going from this government so far, combined with their new found anti-foreigner, anti-expert, anti big business rhetoric then I remain to be convinced that LHR will be anything like as busy as it is now in 10 years time as focus moves away from London and towards other EU cities. If we ditch the EU open skies agreements, which this Govt may well do just for a laugh, because let's face it they dont' give a toss about aviation anyway, then we will really be in for a rough ride and LHR will become a shadow of current itself. That is possibly their reason for delaying it, because they know it won't be needed in the future.

Expatrick

19th Oct 2016, 17:29

We shall see. With the way things are going from this government so far, combined with their new found anti-foreigner, anti-expert, anti big business rhetoric then I remain to be convinced that LHR will be anything like as busy as it is now in 10 years time as focus moves away from London and towards other EU cities. If we ditch the EU open skies agreements, which this Govt may well do just for a laugh, because let's face it they dont' give a toss about aviation anyway, then we will really be in for a rough ride and LHR will become a shadow of current itself. That is possibly their reason for delaying it, because they know it won't be needed in the future.

Suspect that you are right...

Andy_S

19th Oct 2016, 21:24

Fairdealfrank

19th Oct 2016, 23:36

Apparently she bottled it.

Decision next year after more consultation. Spineless moron :-(

Airports expansion decision 'next year' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37692903)Does appear that Theresa May is developing a reputation as a bottler. She already bottled an October general election to give her a mandate which she needs because there are storms clouds on the horizon, such as grammar schools, Heathrow, fracking, NHS/junior docs, and brexit.

Look at her opposition: the Labour party is doing back-to-the-future with impersonations of Michael Foot/militant and making itself deeply unpopular with voters; leaderless UKIP are fighting like ferrets in a sack (Nigel will be back); the Libdems are still, unsurprisingly, not trusted.

A pity that she has not learned the mistakes of Gordon Brown and Sunny Jim Callaghan and that is to go the country before the **** hits the fan.

There'll never be a better time from her point of view.

Oh dear... this news isn't really unexpected unless you don't understand national infrastructure planning approvals.
Isn't the national infrastructure planning procedure supposed to speed things up.

Embarrassing news. Just embarrassing.

Just build a third (and a fourth) and get it over and done with! Indeed!

The UK is the most densely populated country in Europe. France has the same population in twice the land area.Wrong, Malta is, and both Belgium and the Netherlands are more densely populated than the UK.

Countries by Population Density 2015 - StatisticsTimes.com (http://statisticstimes.com/population/countries-by-population-density.php)

Enclaves such as Monaco, Gibralter and the Vatican are even more densly populated.

According to the 'pedia the Govt of the day started the HS2 process in January 2009 & the Sec.of State gave a decision to proceed in January '12, so it can be done. Certainly HS2 has a significant environmental impact & substantial costs - or am I missing something?Yes, a hell of a lot more than another rwy, and in the case of HS2, it's tax-payers money being wasted.

Yes we used to do things like the Chinese when we built railways and canals and yes we could do it again: as follows:
1. Abolish all judicial review processes and any rights to question all and any Government decisions.
2. Abolish any duties on the government to "consult" various groups.
2. Abolish all right to compensation. Look how wartime legislation gave HMG a head start to 'create' Heathrow as it became by edict rather than actually have to "pay" landowners to buy the land plot by plot.
3. Abolish all H&Safety, Human Rights Acts and employment protection legislation.
4. Remove the right to vote from women - they are the main activists and complainers about usually everything.That's one extreme to the other. Let's face it, we've already had 50 years (Harold Wilson stated that we needed another rwy in 1968) of endless reviews, commissions, enquiries, consulations, dither, indecision, decision, revoked decision, procrastination, fantasy (Boris island), balls and long grass, and cans being kicked down the road.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edi_local http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/585743-lhr-given-permission-build-3rd-runway-2.html#post9546207)
We shall see. With the way things are going from this government so far, combined with their new found anti-foreigner, anti-expert, anti big business rhetoric then I remain to be convinced that LHR will be anything like as busy as it is now in 10 years time as focus moves away from London and towards other EU cities. If we ditch the EU open skies agreements, which this Govt may well do just for a laugh, because let's face it they dont' give a toss about aviation anyway, then we will really be in for a rough ride and LHR will become a shadow of current itself. That is possibly their reason for delaying it, because they know it won't be needed in the future.

Suspect that you are right... One major flaw with this argument: no one had an inkling that the UK would vote to leave, not even the leave campaign. So how do you expalin the last 50 years?

KelvinD

20th Oct 2016, 06:41

The boss of Heathrow has just done his cause no favours in an interview on the BBC some minutes ago. He was happy to boast about making £1.4Billion profit last year but refused to answer the question re tax paid, alleged by the interviewer to be £54Million, or less than 4%. So, the average tax payer, paying 20% or more, is supposed to be pleased to pay for Heathrow's expansion?

rutankrd

20th Oct 2016, 09:07

Controversial - The best place for runway expansion is India/Beijing and Djakarta - THOSE are the points almost ALL global forecasts indicate are where the vast majority of aviation growth will occur over the next 25 years.

Forecasts for European growth are very much lower and concentrated within the leisure sectors .Its not in long haul and certainly not in short haul business sectors.

The more UK regional traffic bi-passes London the better and its a commercial decision for BA(IAG) to decide whether to target or leave that that market to others_ They have is it 4500 weekly slots at Heathrow and prefer to fly with their colleagues in AA multiple times a day to multiple US cities yet can't seem to make (what is said to be the primary reason for the extra runway) a secondary Chinese city work.

As for the argument that UK regional would regain some access with the increase in slots i simply don't believe it - They went away because they were largely unprofitable - That's the fact.

Remember bmi couldn't even make GLA-LHR shuttle work carrying too many other carrier passengers at pennies on the pound bled claret.

Others would have the same result.

roverman

20th Oct 2016, 09:08

rutankrd

20th Oct 2016, 09:16

Can we really expect Lo-Cos to take up slots at an expanded Heathrow? The charge per passenger is already around £40 and is widely expected to go up to fund the development of R3. How on earth does that fit with a Lo-Co business model? Surely they would have to put up fares to recover costs and would then cease to be a Lo-Co

Simple answer in the case of Easyjet absolutely they operate into/out of major EU airports today and business models evolve over time to meet changing risks and opportunities.

Fares from an expanded Heathrow would take account of the operating conditions and for instance you could see them introducing a business product and frequent flyer programme. Both would up yield and cash flow.

Heathrow Harry

20th Oct 2016, 10:15

Pedant alert "Djakarta" has been "Jakarta" since 1972 .... it is pronounced with the "d" tho'

And you are right - CGK opened with two runways in 1985 and they are already looking at expansion - but the locals are up in arms and they are looking at a new airport elsewhere ...sound familiar???

willy wombat

20th Oct 2016, 12:42

I absolutely agree that easy could make operations from Heathrow work profitably but this would probably mean a (temporary?) reduction at other London airports or at least little growth. I would not see the likes of Ryanair or Wizz both of which are truly low cost operating from LHR but I have no doubt that IAG would use Vueling to hold as many of the new slots created as possible at as little cost as possible until IAG's legacy operations could grow into them.

rutankrd

20th Oct 2016, 13:03

probably mean a (temporary?) reduction at other London airports or at least little growth

Quite the elephant in the room is just this - At the expense of other airports - those proposed forty orange jets WILL come from other locations including Gatwick, Luton and one to think about Bristol !

Centralisation at work.

That fact is where mega hubs have developed elsewhere particularly evident in the US and to a lesser extent in Japan regional operations are blighted rather than expanded.

US carriers seem particularly disloyal to medium sized markets and aren't adverse to the prospects of de-hubbing.

Gonzo

20th Oct 2016, 13:18

LoCo airlines already operate from LHR.

Vueling, Germanwings/Eurowings etc.

rutankrd

20th Oct 2016, 14:35

None of those are genuine Low Cost businesses imho

All are subsidiaries of major EU legacies using their slots and booking engines.

You might get a lower frilled service but certainly not true unbundled lower fares of the true flexible fare operators.

Andy_S

20th Oct 2016, 14:56

Does appear that Theresa May is developing a reputation as a bottler. She already bottled an October general election to give her a mandate which she needs because there are storms clouds on the horizon, such as grammar schools, Heathrow, fracking, NHS/junior docs, and brexit.

Look at her opposition: the Labour party is doing back-to-the-future with impersonations of Michael Foot/militant and making itself deeply unpopular with voters; leaderless UKIP are fighting like ferrets in a sack (Nigel will be back); the Libdems are still, unsurprisingly, not trusted.

A pity that she has not learned the mistakes of Gordon Brown and Sunny Jim Callaghan and that is to go the country before the **** hits the fan.

There'll never be a better time from her point of view.

I think TM has a couple of problems.

Firstly, while the political environment may be in her favour, her party only has a very small majority and a firm decision in favour of a 3rd runway is expected to result in a number of MP’s resigning their seats, some of those being marginals. It’s a heck of a risk to take, and I don’t think Mrs May is a risk taker.

Secondly, she’s bound by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. Unless she loses a vote of no confidence she has to continue to 2020.

Fairdealfrank

21st Oct 2016, 23:17

I'll admit to being a Heathrow-sceptic, but I have a genuine question to which I would appreciate comment from anyone well-informed on the matter.

Can we really expect Lo-Cos to take up slots at an expanded Heathrow? The charge per passenger is already around £40 and is widely expected to go up to fund the development of R3. How on earth does that fit with a Lo-Co business model? Surely they would have to put up fares to recover costs and would then cease to be a Lo-Co. Why not? Heathrow's surrounding area is a very rich catchment area. With a 3rd rwy two obstacles to no-frills operations go away: the eye-watering costs of slot allocation, and the costs associated with the delays caused by 100% capacity.

U2 has already stated that it would have a large base at Heathrow-4. Other UK carriers would doubtless be there, both legacy and no-frills and those in between.

I think TM has a couple of problems.

Firstly, while the political environment may be in her favour, her party only has a very small majority and a firm decision in favour of a 3rd runway is expected to result in a number of MP’s resigning their seats, some of those being marginals. It’s a heck of a risk to take, and I don’t think Mrs May is a risk taker.

Secondly, she’s bound by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. Unless she loses a vote of no confidence she has to continue to 2020. Her problem is not learning from the fate of Sunny Jim Callaghan and Gordon Brown.

No one will resign their seats as Heathrow expansion is NOT an election issue. The sole exception to this is Zac Goldsmith who has threatened to resign. In that case, either a Conservative candidate or Goldsmith (as an independent) will win. It's not a big deal.

An election now is hardly a risk, and Theresa May needs her own mandate considering the changes being made form Call-MeDave's agenda. To do it later could be risky as there are storm clouds on the horizon.

Not easy for her to lose a vote of confidence, unless it is "contrived", a necessary device of the ludicrous Libdem Fixed Term Act .

Then when returned with a greater majority, and she would be, repeal the Fixed Term Act (an unwelcome American import). Stick it in the manifesto, then if the House of Lords plays up, use the Parliament Act 1949.

Walnut

22nd Oct 2016, 06:30

I believe the R3 decision was differed as public finances are deteriorating at an alarming rate. Plus her majority is not secure look what happened at Witney a by election in a Cons seat with a smaller majority could easily change hands

Helen49

22nd Oct 2016, 08:00

I wrote my dissertation on this subject in 1972 when Prof Buchanan had been tasked with identifying the best site for ‘an airport for London’!!
His proposals were largely ignored [he came up with the wrong answers].

Since then Stansted has developed….on one runway; still one runway at Gatwick [to all intents and purposes]; several runways closed at Heathrow [although I appreciate that these were crossing runways] and docklands has opened! Moreover development of the rest of the infrastructure has rendered the development of existing airports more complex, more costly and more chaotic during any such construction.

May be, just may be Boris Island is not as daft as it sounds and incidentally not a million miles from Foulness suggested by Prof Buchanan in 1972!

Some are likening the airport issue to the HS2 project…….something will be needed to cope with the extra rail passengers as the railways approach the same situation as south east airports!

Perhaps the real problem is that although we can shout about what should be done, we all suffer from the ‘not in my backyard/constituency’ state of mind. It matters not whether it is an airport, a railway, a by-pass or whatever. We all [or most of us] advocate building in the back yard of others. Now the person who can solve that conundrum will be a genius but probably not a politician!
H49

anothertyke

22nd Oct 2016, 08:01

Interesting debate re EasyJet. I don't see by any means the whole of their market at LHR coming from abstraction from their operations at Gatwick, Bristol etc. If that were the case, why would they do it? I think the business case depends on them building a network at LHR of European city routes competing head on with BA, AF, EI, LH etc for p to p traffic and serving a bunch of sun destinations which are currently poorly served out of LHR. Is there a profitable space for them to jump into? They seem to think there is.

Andy_S

22nd Oct 2016, 10:50

An election now is hardly a risk, and Theresa May needs her own mandate considering the changes being made form Call-MeDave's agenda. To do it later could be risky as there are storm clouds on the horizon.

I agree she ought to walk an election now, but she's not able to call one. Her hands are tied.

There may indeed be storm clouds on the horizon, but there's also a boundary review before 2020 which will work in her favour. So waiting until 2020 has it's advantages.

Not easy for her to lose a vote of confidence, unless it is "contrived", a necessary device of the ludicrous Libdem Fixed Term Act.

My point exactly! TM would need the co-operation of Labour to trigger an early election, and I can't see that happening. Turkeys, Christmas, etc etc......

Anyway, lets not get sidetracked into politics.

Trinity 09L

22nd Oct 2016, 20:30

Helen
Nimby is not the context of R3. This is not a back yard issue. This "yard" has over 2m folk, thousands of acres and all will be affected (some unaware of the future footprint of noise and operations in their area, currently unaffected). A huge land grab will be taken from public areas (road diversions etc), housing, commercial & industrial properties etc moved) new railways proposed etc. Housing will be required elsewhere for the future jobs offered, unless poor substandard accommodation is available nearby to offset the cost of travel.
What part HAL will fund is unknown and then tax deductible.

Donkey497

23rd Oct 2016, 03:37

The simple answer to that is that HAL should fund any development 100%.

Heathrow and the rest of the BAA monopoly were sold off some years ago to various UK & foreign investors. As such we effectively declared to the rest of the world that these assets were surplus to requirements and therefore had no strategic value to the UK.

We may derive benefit from having them where they are, but they do not belong to the country. They are independent businesses and should thrive or fail as they are able to address the vagaries of the commercial environment they operate within. It's effectively like someone deciding to build a garage servicing cars. The local area will get benefit from its presence by being able to use its services, jobs will be created and other businesses and financial benefits may be drawn into the locality by virtue of its operation. BUT, does the taxpayer fund every local garage that starts up? NO. as a business you have to stand on your own two feet.
Simply put, Ferrovial of Spain, Qatar Holdings, The Quebec Investment Fund, The UK Universities' pension fund, & the investment companies of the Governments of Singapore and China should be footing the bill for the development of their asset.

If we pay for any development work, we should be getting the Title Deeds back for the airport.
We are far to quick to offer money for things that we used to own, but don't even get a fair whack of tax on operating profit for any more, and it needs to stop.
Otherwise we could end up in the farcical situation that Reichskancellor Frau Sturgeon has created with buying Prestwick.

Helen49

23rd Oct 2016, 05:51

Trinity 09L

I was merely saying that this discussion has been going on for over 40 years and still no solution, meanwhile the task of finding an answer has become even more difficult. I am inclined to agree with your sentiment that R3 at Heathrow is far too disruptive to the rest of the community, however the disruption sentiment is shared by so many other back yard owners!!

Donkey 497

Agreed, the airport [which ever it may be] and not the taxpayer should be bearing the majority of the cost burden.

Navpi

23rd Oct 2016, 15:04

Taxpayer involvement is less than desirable and in view should be avoided.

In last 2 years LHR has given £2 billion to shareholders whilst only £53m has ended up with the exchequer in the the form of tax. Apparently this equates to only 4%.

By going cap in hand HAL leave themselves open to opportunistic criticism.

Trash 'n' Navs

23rd Oct 2016, 18:38

I'm looking forward to the detailed proposal & consultation next year in the lead up to the NPS - should reveal the "truth" behind TfL numbers & how much Heathrow will contribute to surface access issues. The Highways Agency should be improving the M4/M25 junction now, not waiting another 5 years so they can bundle it in with LHR-3.

jamesgrainge

23rd Oct 2016, 19:40

Know this may be a little out of the hat for most, and it is a comment as a northerner, (Ey up lad, where's me flat cap!!) but instead of focusing in the south east why can we not have a Central UK airport? All we need is an area with a slightly quiet airport operating already, that is in plenty of open space, with a major motorway links on its doorstep, connected to Kings cross via a HS rail link. My personal view is a development of East Midlands with another runway etc would be a more common sensical move, SID and STAR with so little overfly and clean routes to both the Atlantic and Europe.

PAXboy

23rd Oct 2016, 21:48

The short answer to why we cannot build a central hub is:Time.

The time to do that would have been 30+ years ago. But if anyone had guessed that a massive hub was needed - I don't think it reached above back room talk. The only focus was on the big airports and when Heathrow was not expanded (ask the politicians etc.) the focus went to: LGW (additional terminal and squeeze capacity), STN, LTN, LCY, eventually SEN.

Simultaneously, the regions found their options and so we have had 25 years of expansion in (variously): BRS, SOU, BHX, MAN, LPL, LMA, NCL, GLA, EDI and probably more.

So, to change that? You would not only have to locate the new hub but persuade all folks who use the other airports (pax, carriers and staff) to change to your idea. Not to mention that all the plans for road and rail connection to the new super-hub would have to be put in place. Lastly, all the folks who use the regional airports (pax, carriers and staff) would be mighty upset that they would see a reduction in services. That is because KLM/AF, Lufthansa, Ezy, RyanAir etc, would have to review all their operations and consider what to move and what to cut.

You can see how that will not happen.

Navpi

24th Oct 2016, 09:33

Have to agree. I fear it's completely missed the boat or in this case the plane.

Patterns of transport maybe completely different in 15-20 years.

Interestingly on Marr, Grayling recognised move to P2P, is there a political suprise waiting ?

eggc

24th Oct 2016, 10:46

The next generation of aircraft suggest P2P is actually the future.

The 787 started this in a way, enabling thinner P2P routes to be viable, however the NEO's and MAX's about to hit will open up even thinner routes, all chipping away at hub traffic.

JetBlue, NAX will for sure go this way, NAX already announced UK-US on MAX's, JetBlue looking at it seriously, but so will many other airlines that have these types on order.

The world these days wants instant, close, no hassle...NEO/MAX operating thin routes away from hubs will become increasingly important, and hubs less so...and the public will love it, lets face it unless you live on LHR / AMS / CDG / FRA's doorstep you don't really want to have go there.

Trash 'n' Navs

24th Oct 2016, 11:42

Except aren't many (most) 787 being used hub-hub or based at hubs which was supposed to be the market for the 380?

eggc

24th Oct 2016, 13:20

787's were not really my main point, although capable of thinner P2P routes your right they have entered mainly as hub serving and not so much as Boeing sold them as, ie a tool to open thinner P2P's.

The real game changer will be NEO's and MAX's, that every Tom, Dick and Harry will have. They will really open up the LH market to regional airports.

Navpi

24th Oct 2016, 17:47

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-10-24/heathrow-runway-really-does-not-fly

I hope Theresa May doesn't watch the Bloomberg Financial Analysts feeds, this is really bad news as they are trashing the Heathrow proposals here.

These are respected journalists whose opinion will be listened to in some places.

Let's pray the decision is irrevocable despite a possible backlash downwind!

Trash 'n' Navs

24th Oct 2016, 19:14

[url]These are respected journalists whose opinion will be listened to in some places.

Really?

Shock - German based journo supports Gatwick because expanding LGW is the best way to boost jobs at FRA (and AMS, CDG....)

MANFOD

24th Oct 2016, 19:52

Really?
Shock - German based journo supports Gatwick because expanding LGW is the best way to boost jobs at FRA (and AMS, CDG....)

And those London journalists supporting Heathrow expansion are respected, independent and totally objective??

Una Due Tfc

24th Oct 2016, 20:01

The real game changer will be NEO's and MAX's, that every Tom, Dick and Harry will have. They will really open up the LH market to regional airports.

Plus IAG can throw a few NEOs into EI, with the preclearance in DUB and SNN anyone can fly to any airport they like in the US. I believe MAN are getting preclearance too? Ryanair, EZY, JBU, Southwest, etc could get in too, assuming losing a narrowbody for 2 sectors a day is more profitable than 5+ on shorter sectors within Europe or North America, that's where I'd have my doubts on the locos joining.

Navpi

24th Oct 2016, 21:22

Well I certainly didn't realise the cost of Rw3 was more than the asset value of the airport " as is "

As for calling into question Bloomberg. ..desperate stuff!

Navpi

24th Oct 2016, 21:47

And now this... bloody hell she has erased all criticism of her dislike for Heathrow !!!!!

This is straight from George Orwell !

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2042014/theresa-may-clears-criticism-of-heathrow-expansion-from-personal-website-ahead-of-runway-announcement/

eggc

24th Oct 2016, 22:44

Boris set to cause a right fuss....this is going to become really messy...

Boris Johnson to spark Cabinet rift as Government expected to give green light to expanding Heathrow (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/24/boris-johnson-to-spark-cabinet-rift-as-government-expected-to-gi/)

wallp

25th Oct 2016, 07:14

They won't be so bold but why not build new runways at Heathrow and Gatwick?

Both airports could do with more runway capacity and it would build in an element of future planning because this issue of runways is bound to come up again regardless of where the next one is built.

Of course it won't happen but it should.

Trash 'n' Navs

25th Oct 2016, 08:49

An interesting read if you have time - especially Q3.

Sir Howard Davies at the Lords Economic Affairs Committee (http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/economic-affairs-committee/the-airports-commission/oral/18764.html)

KelvinD

25th Oct 2016, 09:00

Boris set to cause a right fuss....this is going to become really messy..
I wonder... "Boris, which do you want, Foreign Secretary's job or the back bench?"

T250

25th Oct 2016, 09:12

I wonder... "Boris, which do you want, Foreign Secretary's job or the back bench?"

What makes you think he will still be Foreign Secretary, TM will be Prime Minister or even the Tory's still in power in 10-15 years time when all the legal challenges have been heard and upheld or rejected? :hmm::E

Southside Hangers

25th Oct 2016, 09:25

Expansion now approved

Southside Hangers

25th Oct 2016, 09:30

UK Govt approves expansion of Heathrow Airport - press - According to the Airports commission, the decision will also be subject to around a year of consultation before Parliament votes and, if approved, will only then enter the planning process.- Construction is not likely to begin until 2020 or 2021

Please move as required mods

Skipness One Echo

25th Oct 2016, 09:36

http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/200585-heathrow-241.html

Existing thread here.

T250

25th Oct 2016, 09:36

Cue more decades of dithering!! :D:yuk:

ExXB

25th Oct 2016, 09:46

Breaking News on the BBC. New Runway might be in use by 2025, but then again it might not.

Contact Approach

25th Oct 2016, 09:50

Finally!!!

LadyL2013

25th Oct 2016, 09:58

So basically what they've decided is.....there might be a new runway at LHR. good to see all that money and time has made progress on this whole thing. Oh wait....

MANFOD

25th Oct 2016, 10:03

Sir Howard Davies at the Lords Economic Affairs Committee (http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/economic-affairs-committee/the-airports-commission/oral/18764.html)

Interesting link T'n'N

But I'm not sure the good folk of Scotland would be too impressed with this comment in Q7:

" That is what they really want. (connectivity to LHR he is referring to). In Scotland , for example, they are very keen that there should be some North Atlantic links , and a daily flight to JFK is probably realistic, but will you get an Edinburgh ‑ Denver flight or an Edinburgh ‑ Chicago flight? No, you will not"

I'm sure someone can tell us how many flights to the States EDI and GLA combined had this last summer.

AndrewH52

25th Oct 2016, 10:18

Cue more decades of dithering!! :D:yuk:

Big difference this time is that the planning process most likely won't be in the hands of local planning authorities. This is a nationally significant infrastructure project and as set out in the official announcement below will be decided by the Planning Inspector. The 12 month consultation period makes much more sense now as it will effectively be the consultation on the National Policy Statement (NPS) for the new runway.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-decides-on-new-runway-at-heathrow

BatteryMaster

25th Oct 2016, 10:24

Refreshing that action appears to be finally underway (despite the need for it to pass through much consultation). As we've seen many times in the past, it's been such a contentious issue that governments have been only too happy to pass it onto their successors. Long overdue!

DaveReidUK

25th Oct 2016, 10:26

Transport Secretary due to make statement in the Commons at around 1pm.

golfbananajam

25th Oct 2016, 10:29

for those of us who don't live in London this makes no sense. there is plenty of capacity at regional airports to move some of the current traffic thus freeing up space in the London airports

but then what do I know

good luck getting to/from LHR when it is built

Midland 331

25th Oct 2016, 10:31

Meanwhile, does anyone else share my feelings of mild irritation on the following, of children as innocent victims?:-

Growing up under Heathrow's flightpath - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37762018)

How much does Heathrow pump in to Greater West London's economy?

And why move near an airport (with your children) then complain about the noise?

Has anyone observed that current aircraft are quieter than the pre-stage three machines that used to be my wake-up call when I was lodging at The Heston Hilton, circa 1982? Ah, didn't think so...

His dudeness

25th Oct 2016, 10:39

Just make sure, that no German is involved in the planning or construction.

BER might get into use in 2025. But no one really knows...

Hussar 54

25th Oct 2016, 10:39

Just wondering if IAG include the value of Heathrow slots in their Balance Sheet ?

Maybe time to sell them if they do....

Edited to add that I meant any IAG shares you may have....

brakedwell

25th Oct 2016, 10:44

It will never happen :{

msjh

25th Oct 2016, 10:44

A poor decision. Traffic around West London and associated motorways to become even slower. Ongoing noise and pollution for millions of Londoners. And the small but non-zero risk that one day, on approach or departure a plane will crash into a highly populated area, whereas at Gatwick it might hit some cows.

Heathrow is much closer to me than Gatwick, but it's a poor choice.

Basil

25th Oct 2016, 10:50

Skipness One Echo

25th Oct 2016, 10:51

LIVE: Heathrow will get a third runway (http://news.sky.com/story/live-will-government-give-nod-to-heathrow-10631557)
"Government will also take all necessary steps including, where appropriate, ring-fencing a suitable proportion of new slots for domestic routes, to ensure enhanced connectivity within the UK."

This is the crucial one for me, manage the market forces and keep the UK connected.

I'm sure someone can tell us how many flights to the States EDI and GLA combined had this last summer.

Eight from memory, excluding Air Transat and Air Canada Rouge.
It's highly seasonal, in winter GLA has one (almost) daily New York EWR and EDI is daily.

-- Edited as DL operated EDI-JFK in winter too.
Summer sees :

GLA-EWR UA
GLA-PHL AA
GLA-JFK DL (new 2017)

EDI EWR x 2 UA
EDI-ORD UA
EDI-JFK DL
EDI-JFK AA

So business can support one daily connection and summer holidays drive a lot more which business can then use.

LadyL2013

25th Oct 2016, 10:51

Oh my, I forgot about the NIMBY's that are going to come out.

You should have to sign some sort of legal document that of you move within a certain radius of an airport you cant complain about the noise. Reminds me of my Aunt who always complains about the noise from kids and school traffic when she decided to move right next to a school.

Basil

25th Oct 2016, 10:57

PDR1

25th Oct 2016, 10:58

I gather the clinching argument was that Boris will lie down in front of the bulldozers if Heathrow was chosen. I'm told that they're looking to fund most of the project by holding a lottery for the job of driving the 'dozer.

If we pay extra can we get Gove and Fox lying in front as well?

pax britanica

25th Oct 2016, 10:58

The right decsion but what a joke

A 2025 service date means that it has taken the UK 40 years to decide where to build a new runway . A decision a 15 year old with an inerest in a viation could have taken inside five minutes.

All major countries (and by 2025 we might not be one of these anymore) so lets say all global cities need global connectivity and that means a hub or focus airport. As we are a small country geography and population wise with one very large city it is economic for the main airport to provide not just a lot of direct services but support its economy and the viability of those services with transit passengers as LHR has done for years.

So, expand LHR and you keep this extremely successful model and LHR and London in the top 5 of global cities/airports or expand Gatwick and get two airports that might as well be 200 miles apart given the M25 neither of which are fit for purpose because they are both too small.

How hard is that ? An example of our horribly broken political process that serves our country so badly in so many ways

Cyrano

25th Oct 2016, 10:58

Forgive me if I am missing something, but does the reference to "government approves new runway at Heathrow" imply that it is HAL's plan for a new North runway (rather than the Heathrow Hub runway extension) which has been chosen, or is this merely saying "Heathrow is the chosen location, we haven't specified whether it's the North runway or the extended runway option yet"?

racedo

25th Oct 2016, 11:02

So does this mean there will be delays on M25 around Heathrow...........

trident3A

25th Oct 2016, 11:03

Fantastic news, I just hope we can get it finished before 2030!

DaveReidUK

25th Oct 2016, 11:05

azz767

25th Oct 2016, 11:14

I'd assume its a 3rd northern runway as looking at the wording in the articles and looking at the press release it references the favoured choice of the davies commission and that was a new 3rd runway.

On a side note, It will be weird seeing the orange tail at LHR in the future

Cows getting bigger

25th Oct 2016, 11:15

Fantastic news, I just hope we can get it finished before 2030!

Indeed. I'm off to the pub at a quarter to nine. :)

AndrewH52

25th Oct 2016, 11:16

The statement talks specifically of a new full length runway (i.e. not just doubling the length of an existing one) and of working with HAL on the design and costs - which would indicate to me it is their scheme.

Also, the levels of compensation and demolitions mentioned suggests it is the HAL scheme.

inOban

25th Oct 2016, 11:19

So Howard Davies didn't know that there was already a EDI -ORD flight, at least in summer!

W16 there will be at least one daily EDI flight to NY. Both UA and DL drop 1-2 days, but different days.

PAX for other US destinations are most likely to use Reykjavik, or DUB, or even Schipol, which is no dafter than using LHR.

MANFOD

25th Oct 2016, 11:19

So business can support one daily connection and summer holidays drive a lot more which business can then use.

Thanks Skip but I would suggest that his comments suggest Sir Howard was a little out of touch with reality. Leisure passengers do count. Note he even said 'probably'. And LGW supporters have pointed out that his (the Commission's) passenger forecast for 2030 has already been reached this year, as Ian King reminded us on Sky News on line this morning.

silverstrata

25th Oct 2016, 11:27

This has already been debated ad-nauseum on the following thread. This is an interesting thread, because it covers every topic of this debate, from every angle. There is something there for everyone.

http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/469575-new-thames-airport-london-70.html#post9039270

The bottom line of my argument, is that LHR does not have the flight or ground infrastructure to be a world-hub airport. This is not about runways in the S.E., this is about an international hub airport, and LHR cannot provide that capacity. We need a 2- or 3-runway international airport-terminal, linked to a 2- or 3-runway regional terminal, which provides the regional feeder traffic to and from the international flights. And because LHR cannot accommodate lo-co carriers, I always travel to AMS for my international flights. It is quicker than travelling to LHR by train, especially since there is no overnight train to get me into LHR for 06:00. Thus LHR is not, and never can be, a world hub airport.

What we need is a 6-runway worldhub airport, with no city overflights, no noise problems, and no night ban. A true 24/7 airport. And it would be nice if it had motorway links north and south, train links to London and the west via Crossrail, TGV links to Paris and Brussels, plus HS2 links to the north and northwest. Only a Silver-Boris Thames airport can provide all of this. And in addition, the Silver-Boris Thames airport will form a part of a Thames barrage, which is long overdue and expensive in its own right.

Another runway at LHR will merely kick this can another 5 years down the road. It will not solve anything.

Herod

25th Oct 2016, 11:43

So, we need another year of "consultation". What has been going on these last twenty-five years. Heathrow is in the wrong place, by a decision taken immediately post WWII. Time to bite the bullet and start again, with a decent time frame?

A30yoyo

25th Oct 2016, 11:55

http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/image/eaw036484?search=heathrow&ref=16

'Fantastic news, I just hope we can get it finished before 2030! '

Indeed. I'm off to the pub at a quarter to nine. ".........quoth Cows getting bigger

Is that BST or GMT.?...and you better confirm they're using quick setting cement!

Anyway historically it will be Heathrow's 8th runway....and just look at that old northern taxiway on the link!

Less Hair

25th Oct 2016, 12:05

Don't worry. You can still ask the BER-experts in Germany how to build it.

GAXLN

25th Oct 2016, 12:07

Importantly, home owners around Heathrow including those under the flight paths should be able to breathe a sigh of relief that this much needed development will help support property prices for sometime to come. Heathrow generates direct wealth for these very fortunate people. Pity some fail to appreciate what it is worth to them having such easy access to Heathrow and the direct and indirect jobs generated. If they don't like the thought of a third runway - sell out and move somewhere else but don't stop the much needed third runway. Now let's get on and let's try and build it as quickly as possible. It needs a Kennedy "we'll put men on the moon by the end of the decade" focus, especially post-Brexit.

jonnymac

25th Oct 2016, 12:25

Are the authorities aware that a new Airport is planned for the central belt in Scotland," closing and/or downgrading Glasgow and Edinburgh where expansion is impossible" with excellent road and rail links already in place, two of the longest runways in Europe, and backing from some of the largest airlines in the world, this will alter the whole economy of Scotland, and just maybe eliminate the need for any expansion in the South.

Rivet Joint

25th Oct 2016, 12:30

Yes!!!!!!!!!!! Finally common sense prevails. The airlines want to do business at LHR so it's only right that the government provides the infrastructure that they have been crying out for. No one wants to fly from that dump LGW unless they are flying low cost. By the way, I wouldn't be surprised to see EZY move all if not the majority of their LGW operation to LHR. You heard it here first. With the welcome decision of BREXIT this country needs to be in a position where it can rightfully reclaim its place as the Hub of the world. I very much hope that everyone who opposed this decision will go back in their boxes. Exciting times.

pax britanica

25th Oct 2016, 12:33

There is nowhere in SE England to build a 'world hub' if such a thing exists other than the new UAE airport which currently no one uses .

There is no point at all having two airports however theyare divided since in SE England any land journey takes a ridculously long time or is ridiculously expensive if by train.

If Boris island was built the train fare from the IT Valley between Guildford and reading M3/A40 corridors would be more expensive than the airfare to places like Paris Amsterdam etc etc.

Of course LHR isn't ideal but it is the only realistic choice -the reason it is there in the first place is because its on the only bit of flat ground anywhere near London and with usual lack of foresight (perhaps pardonable at the time) was not to leave all the area north of LHR as open land rather than just half of it and developed the airport with that area shown from the start as provision for a third parallel runway.

Now its on to HS2 - 2050 anyone?

eggc

25th Oct 2016, 12:35

Council Van

25th Oct 2016, 12:40

jonnymac I am afraid that Scotland is just a small Country near to London.

Population, 5.5 million, where are all the passengers going to come from to justify a new airport in the central belt?

As for the Heathrow expansion, is it not time for some joined up thinking with the half hearted HS2 being re routed to call at the airport and being redirected in the City to St Pancras International giving good connections with trains from the East of the UK, the Midlands and HS1 to the continent. Trains on the mainline from the West should also be connected to the airport so that passengers do not having to go past to Paddington to then come back out West.

Still, it is all conjecture, I am sure I will not have to worry about landing on the new third runway having only 18 years left till retirement. I would be mildly surprised if construction has even started by then.

dc9-32

25th Oct 2016, 12:42

Can't see our politicians out of work now can we so let the dragging on commence....

DaveReidUK

25th Oct 2016, 12:48

Unixman

25th Oct 2016, 12:49

Why not somewhere like Upper Heyford ? Excellent transport links (M40 and a railway are very close), decent length of runway .... I expect to be shot down though :-)

compton3bravo

25th Oct 2016, 12:57

Please do not get too excited, it will not be built IMHO. I go back to the days of the Rosskill Commission in the late 1960s which recommended Cublington (near Tring in Hertfordshire). To many objections, cost etc. By all means go to the pub A30yoyo but please do not get too excited you hear now.

Trinity 09L

25th Oct 2016, 13:00

Expansion costs will be paid for by the private sector, not by the taxpayer. It will be for the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), as the independent industry regulator, to work with Heathrow Airport Ltd and airlines operating at the airport, on the detailed design and costs to ensure the scheme remains affordable. The government expects the industry to work together to drive down costs to benefit passengers. The aim should be to deliver a plan for expansion that keeps landing charges close to current levels.

So no cost to UK government - apart from the cost to move off the balance sheet to debt and no tax paid, keeping the dividend intact. :ugh:

AndrewH52

25th Oct 2016, 13:03

I'm surprised people excited by this to be honest. The public consultation will be nasty, the eco-warriors will join in, politicians will not all support it, MAG threatening legal action, LGW will maybe follow suit...this is just the start of more decades of wrangling...no way will this runway be built by 2025, not a chance.

Public consultation will most probably consist of the Government publishing its proposal in the form of the NPS and then seeking written responses on it. The final version, taking account of responses will get published later next year and then parliament will debate it and vote on it. The majority of MPs in the House of Commons support the expansion of Heathrow so it will pass. It will then be in the hands of the Planning Inspector to decide whether the proposals are appropriate or not.

MAG would be foolish to sue and the Swampy's of this world will no doubt try and chain themselves to various trees. It did no good in the end trying to stop Manchester's second runway and will have little chance of greater success at Heathrow. Boris may even turn up to lie in front of a bulldozer too, but I suspect there would be a long line of people offering to drive the machinery...

Andy_S

25th Oct 2016, 13:03

By the way, I wouldn't be surprised to see EZY move all if not the majority of their LGW operation to LHR. You heard it here first.

No you didn't. Other's have speculated the same for several weeks. Although personally I'm not convinced.

hampshireandy

25th Oct 2016, 13:07

At least a year of consultation, then a vote, then protests, then a post brexit Uk. Meanwhile the far east will have built half a dozen airports in that time.

If anyone thinks LHR will ever get a new runway they are living in cloud cuckoo land.

inOban

25th Oct 2016, 13:22

Rivet Joint. I won't waste my time arguing BREXIT, but perhaps you could explain why we have any right to reclaim our position as the Hub of the world. Britain (not London) became the hub of the world on the basis of Naval Power, the slave trade and the creation of the industrial revolution. All a long way in the past. We have been living well beyond our means for at least a century and are now a heavily-indebted island, and hence dependent on the grace and favour of others.

Planemike

25th Oct 2016, 13:25

Hope it is never built. It is not needed............. Expansion for expansion sake..

Andy_S

25th Oct 2016, 13:30

So why do LHR slots change hands for so much money?

vectisman

25th Oct 2016, 13:30

River Joint you really are a nasty little man. I don't not care if I get suspended for saying so. In many threads across these boards you are so negative and vitriolic about your petty hates. LGW is far from a dump. You insult the 40 million people who use it every year.

MANFOD

25th Oct 2016, 13:35

AndrewH52. You make it sound a straightforward process. Might there not be the little matter of legal challenges and court hearings given that 4 councils and probably others have promised action.
I'm not sure at what stage they could start but I suspect they will all add to the time and could even be successful.

Dryce

25th Oct 2016, 13:37

the authorities aware that a new Airport is planned for the central belt in Scotland," closing and/or downgrading Glasgow and Edinburgh where expansion is impossible" w

Really? Glasgow and Edinburgh are not that highly utilised compared with Heathrow. And this grand scheme has been thought up and discarded before. The time to have acted would have been 30 or more years ago when both GLA and EDI were a lot smaller and in public hands (smaller in terms of terminals and pax numbers) and transatlantic traffic was forced to go from or via PIK.

I suspect that given the embarrassment of the possible future liability on the Scottish public purse at PIK that Holyrood would be more likely to find a reason to close GLA on some pretext and force its traffic down to PIK !

BEagle

25th Oct 2016, 13:46

If construction of a third runway at Heathrow would mean the demolition of 750 homes and an enormously speculative and ruinously expensive 'M25 tunnel' (what a terrorist target that would be :( ), yet the alternative at Gatwick would not - then there can be no justification for choosing LHR.

A high speed rail link between the 2 airports is needed though.

HZ123

25th Oct 2016, 13:47

On a positive note I look forward to BA moving the Beach Fleet from LGW to LHR. It will be so much easier for staff travel, however at my age I do need this to be completed by 2025.

On another point I do wish threaders would resort from childish insults and vitriolic comments, many of you live nowhere near LHR / LGW and probably merely fly when you go on holiday. Your professed knowledge of people living in the airport environment and the vast benefits they are in receipt of surprise me. I must assume you personally know residents, airport staff and crew.

Skipness One Echo

25th Oct 2016, 13:48

Let the gruesome legal battle over Heathrow commence | Coffee House (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/let-gruesome-legal-battle-heathrow-commence/)

Good piece about how M'Learned Friends milk a system where politicians gave up their responsibilities.

msjh

25th Oct 2016, 13:55

A high speed link (= 20 mins) would be most helpful.

Cuillin Hills

25th Oct 2016, 13:56

Think of the positive news from this decision - Zac Goldsmith is going to resign as an MP!

As an aside to this - with British Airways becoming more and more London centric (I live in the SE of the UK but very, very rarely use Heathrow and/or BA) could BA perhaps consider renaming themselves London Airways or South-East Airlines or something similarily appropriate?

PS Just being cheeky before someone kicks off and calls me anti-BA etc, etc.

Council Van

25th Oct 2016, 13:59

What purpose would a rail link between Heathrow and Gatwick serve?

No way would I fly part way around the World to Heathrow to collect my baggage, get on a train, check in at Gatwick, go through security to get on another aircraft to fly to my final destination.

Herod

25th Oct 2016, 14:01

I go back to the days of the Rosskill Commission in the late 1960s which recommended Cublington

And Maplin Sands among others. This was going on when I was still in basic training for the RAF. Now, a twelve-year stint for Her Majesty, followed by some twenty-eight years commercial, and twelve-years retirement, it's still being debated. I doubt if even my grandchildren will see a new runway in the southeast, let alone a new airport.

PDR1

25th Oct 2016, 14:02

Well if there is such a demand for flights from non-London airports then BA are allowing other airlines to exploit that demand unmollested by the big guy.

Mind you I doubt there is such a demand from people outside London - few servants, footpads and farm labourers can afford air travel...

:E

msjh

25th Oct 2016, 14:02

PDR1

25th Oct 2016, 14:03

What purpose would a rail link between Heathrow and Gatwick serve?

It would provide a soft target for the workshy railway unions to disrupt proper peoples' day with minimum effort.

Andy_S

25th Oct 2016, 14:04

an enormously speculative and ruinously expensive 'M25 tunnel' (what a terrorist target that would be :( )

You realise there's already a public road tunnel under the northern runway?

.......yet the alternative at Gatwick would not - then there can be no justification for choosing LHR.

The justification for choosing LHR is that it's where the demand is. It's what business wants and it's where airlines want to fly to and from.

Planemike

25th Oct 2016, 14:17

Trust it will NEVER be built. Not necessary. Expansion for expansion sake........

Prophead

25th Oct 2016, 14:25

an enormously speculative and ruinously expensive 'M25 tunnel' (what a terrorist target that would be )

We are talking about a runway over road cut and cover type tunnel not a bored Dartford tunnel type one.

You would think that there should be no need for further discussions and debates about LHR expansion yet some of the comments on this, a pilots forum, show that people really do not have a clue about what should be an easy decision.

Add to that the smoke and mirrors from those with ulterior motives and it is no wonder this has dragged on so long.

Hopefully we can now move forward in what is and has always been, the only sensible option.

DaveReidUK

25th Oct 2016, 14:28

Why not somewhere like Upper Heyford ? Excellent transport links (M40 and a railway are very close), decent length of runway .... I expect to be shot down though :-)

I don't think anyone will bother to shoot you down.

The arguments for and against basing expansion on pretty well every existing strip of concrete in the southern UK (including Heyford) have been debated ad nauseam in these pages over the last few years, as a forum search will reveal.

McDoo

25th Oct 2016, 14:33

There is one elephant in the room. You can increase capacity on the ground at LHR or STN or LGW, but has anyone noticed that the airspace above London is pretty much at maximum capacity. Have NATS been consulted about how they will handle the increase in traffic? It is normal these days to be handed over to a London frequency and not be able to get a word in edgeways until you have already transited that controller's area of authority.

There's a lovely big runway sitting at Manston that has all it's approaches from over water. Just build decent road/rail links. Kent will welcome the extra revenue.

How about moving most of the long haul holiday traffic to some of the regional airports that are currently withering on the vine. People happily drive hours to London airports for their annual holidays to the Caribbean or Far East. Why not redirect them away from the Capital?
But of course, no one in Westminster wants the annoyance of having to get on a motorway to start their holidays....

Andy_S

25th Oct 2016, 14:37

Trust it will NEVER be built. Not necessary. Expansion for expansion sake........

You said exactly the same thing on the R&N Heathrow Expansion thread. So I will ask pretty much the same question.

If it’s only expansion for expansions sake, why is there such demand for slots at LHR? Why do those slots carry so much financial value?

BTW, is it really necessary to have this subject debated on no less than three different threads in three different sections of PPRuNe?

Andy_S

25th Oct 2016, 14:43

There's a lovely big runway sitting at Manston that has all it's approaches from over water.

Putting aside the factual inaccuracy, the reasons why Manston is unsuitable have been debated over and over and over again.

As DaveReid correctly points out, every possibility in SE England has been debated to death on this forum in recent years.

bnt

25th Oct 2016, 14:47

I've been checking the runway out on the map: the village of Harmondsworth will cease to exist, with the runway planned to run over the top of the current primary school. Further to the west, though, I note that it's going to run fairly close to the British Airways headquarters at Waterside. Triple glazing? :E

Less Hair

25th Oct 2016, 14:49

DaveReidUK

25th Oct 2016, 14:56

andrewn

25th Oct 2016, 14:57

Wrong decision for all the wrong reasons. There is no "need" for extra airport capacity in SE England, it is a nice to have, desired by the establishment and by big business to further line their own pockets and supercharge the economy (of the SE) even further, along with the resultant chaos in terms of increased traffic, pollution, further unsustainable population growth and further pressure on housing stock, forcing those already their to move elsewhere.

The world has moved on, and vanity projects such as this serve no purpose, particularly in a country with no reason to pursue endless and unsustainable economic growth.

That's my opinion anyway!

DaveReidUK

25th Oct 2016, 15:00

You can use the two outer runways for approaches and the center one for takeoffs. Might even make HM's home slightly more quiet.
Not much different from using two aside from some go around provisions.

That would make Heathrow the only airport in the world that has twice as many arrivals as departures.

Well apart from possibly Marana, Victorville, Mojave, etc. :O

Planemike

25th Oct 2016, 15:16

Seen your question but still feel that it is "expansion for expansion sake".

procede

25th Oct 2016, 15:18

For balanced capacity with cavok you need about two departure runways per three arrival runways. With fog one to two is actually pretty good.

Andy_S

25th Oct 2016, 15:23

It's clearly not if there is sufficient demand to require a 3rd runway.

Planemike

25th Oct 2016, 15:25

Looks more like another "vanity project" dreamt up to massage politicians egos. See also HS2............

PDR1

25th Oct 2016, 15:37

I've been checking the runway out on the map: the village of Harmondsworth will cease to exist,

You speak as if that were somehow a bad thing...

Further to the west, though, I note that it's going to run fairly close to the British Airways headquarters at Waterside. Triple glazing? :E

Having sp[ent several years working in a portacabin whose triple-glazed windows were the only thing between me and the harriers on flight test (including accels runs and tests on the nearby hoverpan) about 100yds away I don't see any particular reason why this should be a problem. I've been in offices where the road traffic noise was louder.

FullWings

25th Oct 2016, 15:38

This has gone on for so long that I wish they’d just get on with it. The lawyers must be rubbing their hands at the prospect of many more years of pointless argument until it eventually gets built where it could have been decades ago.

Nationally important infrastructure projects approved/initiated by the Government need some sort of expedited process; 30-40 years does no-one (excepting the above legal professionals) any favours and leads to huge expenditure on repeated inquiries with those directly affected being left in limbo. Far better to say: “airport/motorway/railway goes there, here’s your house value + 10% + relocation.” I’m not going to suggest that would leave everyone happy but it’s the least worst option for residents, given that these things normally get constructed despite anyones’ opinions, it being just a matter of timing...

Excommunicator

25th Oct 2016, 15:49

I assume this will mean the end of RAF Northolt (as a flying station, at least)... :{

Linedog

25th Oct 2016, 15:50

Maybe they should have taken over Greenham Common when it was vacated.

Robin757

25th Oct 2016, 15:56

This is not a new runway but a new small airport with its own terminal. Or do they expect people to be bussed in from the existing three terminal areas of LHR. The Piccadilly line will have to be altered again!! Ironically, I have just been speaking to my friend in Berlin where many believe the new airport will never open due to continuing problems and even if it does open it will already be saturated meaning that Tegel will have to stay open!

DaveReidUK

25th Oct 2016, 16:00

This is not a new runway but a new small airport with its own terminal.

The published plans show a new Terminal 6, adjacent to T5.

Dryce

25th Oct 2016, 16:01

No way would I fly part way around the World to Heathrow to collect my baggage, get on a train, check in at Gatwick, go through security to get on another aircraft to fly to my final destination.

A fast link that allowed terminal to terminal connections between LGW and LHR could actually work quite well for transit passengers. If it was an airside transit link then it would work for passengers from domestic flights transiting to international flights.

A 30 minute frequent airside link wouldn't be so much worse than the inter-terminal transfers at LHR over the years where a 150 or 180 minute connection time could easily be consumed by the queues and congestion.

Lou Scannon

25th Oct 2016, 16:03

This is one political decision that will generate more employment for the lawyers and other hangers-on than would be employed in airport jobs.... if the runway ever got built.

My bet is another runway at Gatwick linked by a high speed transit. Probably built around 2030 when we eventually get a decisive government.

Navpi

25th Oct 2016, 16:11

I'm really looking forward to 5 live interview 1805.

Grayling indicates go ahead on basis that

" it will not cost taxpayers a penny "

I canot wait for HAL response � do their shareholders still hold their enthusiasm. !

Prophead

25th Oct 2016, 16:18

A fast link that allowed terminal to terminal connections between LGW and LHR could actually work quite well for transit passengers

No it wouldn't. It would be a complete disaster and just about the worst possible outcome. Not to mention the nimbies on this fast rail route would never let it happen.

A 30 minute frequent airside link wouldn't be so much worse than the inter-terminal transfers at LHR over the years where a 150 or 180 minute connection time could easily be consumed by the queues and congestion.

Over which years exactly? When was the last time you transited through LHR? You are basing a proposed new project on the past case. LHR is in the middle of a complete rebuild and it is becoming a world class airport.

ImageGear

25th Oct 2016, 16:20

I assume this will mean the end of RAF Northolt

On the contrary, Northolt will be the new domestic extension to Heathrow with Runways 4 & 5. with the M4/M40 being under cut and cover.

Remember you heard it here first.

Prophead

25th Oct 2016, 16:23

Looks more like another "vanity project" dreamt up to massage politicians egos. See also HS2.

You are right, we should not build any large infrastructure and continue to use the outdated inefficient facilities we built decades ago.:rolleyes:

Prophead

25th Oct 2016, 16:26

Remember you heard it here first.

And last no doubt.

Planemike

25th Oct 2016, 16:48

You are right, we should not build any large infrastructure and continue to use the outdated inefficient facilities we built decades ago.:rolleyes:

They are what we have so we should continue to use them. In the case of the railway we should upgrade where required and not waste Billions on HS2, a total "vanity project".

PDR1

25th Oct 2016, 16:53

They are what we have so we should continue to use them. In the case of the railway we should upgrade where required and not waste Billions on HS2, a total "vanity project".

Well quite. I mean Thug the Vain only built that "wheel" thing to attract the hot babes while the sensible people stayed up in the trees. Nothing good ever came out of that stupid "FIRE" stuff either...

PDR

adfly

25th Oct 2016, 17:01

Nice to see a step in the right direction, but by 2025 this will be way too little too late. I'd bet on Gatwick being as full as Heathrow today and Stansted being not far behind by then. In an ideal world we'd have LHR 3 and LGW 2 done by 2020, with provisions for LHR 4 and STN 2 for say 2030. I know, politicians would never use such logic...

Planemike

25th Oct 2016, 17:14

Well quite. I mean Thug the Vain only built that "wheel" thing to attract the hot babes while the sensible people stayed up in the trees. Nothing good ever came out of that stupid "FIRE" stuff either.. PDR

Now you are just being silly.......!!

PDR1

25th Oct 2016, 17:16

Well you started it!

:p:p

PDR

ExXB

25th Oct 2016, 17:16

My bet is another runway at Gatwick linked by a high speed transit. Probably built around 2030 when we eventually get a decisive government.

I'm certain that you are exactly right, that is except for another runway at Gatwick and the high speed transit.

There will be at least two governments before 2025. There is no way Heathrow will gain a new runway.

Prophead

25th Oct 2016, 17:20

Who needs railways or airports anyway? We should have just built faster canal boats and been happy with what we had

DaveReidUK

25th Oct 2016, 17:22

For balanced capacity with cavok you need about two departure runways per three arrival runways. With fog one to two is actually pretty good.

The published plan for operation of a 3-runway Heathrow shows one runway being used for departures, one for arrivals and one for both (mixed mode), with their respective roles alternating through four different permutations.

Perhaps you should have a word with them. :O

Walnut

25th Oct 2016, 17:31

Yes we need more capacity but we also need competition hence LGW should get the nod
One other point it is being assumed it will be a new N r/w the statement just said a new r/w Chris Grayling has expressed interest in an extended N r/w. That may just meet the environmental objections

Navpi

25th Oct 2016, 17:39

Well as per my previous post on the Heathrow thread...

"Everyone's a winner babe and thats OK"

Grayling unequivocal ...

"the taxpayer will not pay a penny"

Was asked twice and a firm rebuttal

M25 tunnel remodelling etc all paid for by Heathrow !

BUT there was then an assumption that fares would rise to pay for the work instead. That also drew a blank.

"Nope, fares not expected to rise either "

This is sensational news. I wish all investment was like this!

Given the airport Commission indicated it will cost billions for the additional surface work otherwise the whole area will come to a grinding halt, can anybody suggest.

WHO IS ACTUALLY PAYING ?

msjh

25th Oct 2016, 17:46

No it wouldn't. It would be a complete disaster and just about the worst possible outcome. Not to mention the nimbies on this fast rail route would never let it happen.

Over which years exactly? When was the last time you transited through LHR? You are basing a proposed new project on the past case. LHR is in the middle of a complete rebuild and it is becoming a world class airport.
I want some of what you're smoking ...

Chronus

25th Oct 2016, 18:26

By the time all the protests with bunches of guys and gals taking up residence up in trees, in shrubs, hedges and all manner of vegetation around the site, debates, consultations, judicial reviews and every other kind of row are over and done with there will be lots of Scotties beaming people up all over the place. After all that`s the way things are done over here in our model village, Great Britain. Or should I say our Potemkin Village.

Rivet Joint

25th Oct 2016, 19:24

Vectisman: Why on earth would you take such offence to someone criticising an inanimate object? I think you might want to address that problem before getting worked up by someone's 'opinion'. In my eyes LGW is a dump, in the sense that it only exists to serve overflow. When LHR has added capacity watch everyone apart from FR and the tour operators leave in a heartbeat. I strongly suspect EZY will form a large domestic/European base at LHR and be the main occupier of terminal 6. This will bring some competition to BA domestically and please the pedants in the north (eventually!).

llondel

25th Oct 2016, 19:25

Of course, Heathrow once had six runways (numbered 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 on the map I saw, so even then they didn't have runway #3).

I thought the justification for the third runway was to let a lot of the smaller aircraft use it and save them spending time burning fuel in the hold. No doubt they'd end up at capacity again with three runways and the same amount of delay though.

Trinity 09L

25th Oct 2016, 19:46

At a meeting with HAL.
Q What is that building alongside the proposed new runway is it Terminal 6?
Ans No. It is an extension to Terminal 5
Q Will the tube or rail have access this extension?
Ans No.
Q. Why is terminal 5 doubling in size back towards the M25 - will passengers have to go through two terminals?
Ans. Yes
Q Will Terminal 5 extension accept wide body aircraft or just short haul?
Ans Don't know.:ugh:

A30yoyo

25th Oct 2016, 20:31

Heathrow Airport and continuing construction work, Harmondsworth, 1946 | Britain from Above (http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/image/eaw003346?search=heathrow&ref=7)
In this 1946 aerial shot you're looking down runway #1 aka10L ( now 27R/09L), #3 is already effectively disused ( it ran through the location of the planned central tower) and in use as a parking ramp for aircraft and in the distance the first of the second triangle is built across runway #2 (23L/05R,which did have a long and useful life)...........and it was all determined by the location of the sewage plant in the foreground which Middlesex County Council wouldn't move :-) ......and over time Heathrow got 3 runways in the NW/SE direction where the wind is least common

Hartington

25th Oct 2016, 20:35

I live in Somerset, not far from Yeovilton and helicopters. My "local" airports are about an hour away. Extending the runway at Bristol is, I believe impossible, same at Southampton/Eastleigh, not sure about Exeter but I doubt the traffic base is there. As a child I lived in Chiswick right under the 28R (as it then was) approach Viscounts, 707s, Tridents, VC10s - you don't know noise until you experience them. Most of my working life was spent in Maidenhead which suffered but not as badly.

That means if I want to fly long haul I have to go somewhere in Europe and then pick up my long haul. I like flying (!) but I also recognise that take-off and landing are probably the riskiest bits. So, to avoid the hassle I take the train up to Reading and then RailAir to Heathrow or another train to Gatwick. Depending on flight times I might spend a night at an airport hotel.

Personally, I'm happy to see Heathrow given the opportunity to expand. Quite apart from personal preference I think it's the right solution for UK PLC. However, I also believe it should be part of a much wider plan relating to airspace planning and airport planning for the UK as whole. That in turn should be part of a wider infrastructure plan so that when an airport expands it gets rail links as well as road.

Oh, one last thing. The airlines should be told that their use of an airport is dependent on some kind of accommodation with the railways and bang a few heads together at ATOC (or ROG as it is now known). Coming home from San Francisco last week I couldn't book "advance" tickets because I couldn't reliably predict which train I would be able to catch. In fact we landed on time (after a 40 minute delay to departure) at 1330 and caught the 1530 from Reading but because I couldn't predict which train I'd catch we had to buy expensive rather that (slightly) cheaper tickets.

gcal

25th Oct 2016, 20:46

@Jonnymac
You are aware I take it that UK governments and their acolites are not aware of life outside the M25; unless of course when it's the result of a referendum and they want to keep their own party in power.
Scotland may have attracted the notice of the government (due to recent events such as said referendum) but take it seriously? I do think that'd be too much to ask :)

underfire

25th Oct 2016, 20:52

a 3 lane super highway ending in a 2 car garage...

too bad about Gatwick, that made far more sense.

Hartington, it is far better to book into San Jose, far less delays and very little fog.

procede

25th Oct 2016, 20:55

The published plan for operation of a 3-runway Heathrow shows one runway being used for departures, one for arrivals and one for both (mixed mode), with their respective roles alternating through four different permutations.

Perhaps you should have a word with them. :O

You will need to alternate (technically not mixed mode, as you are not using the gap between two arrivals for a departure) one runway to balance daily capacity if you have three runways. It also works better with arrival and departure peaks (AMS uses this). As a departure runway has more capacity than one used for arrivals, departure mode will need to be used less often than arrival mode. This does not work as well for closely spaced parallels (for example CDG, LAX and ATL 08/26 + 09/27) as departures can only be released after the arrival on the parallel has touched down due to the possibility of missed approaches / go arounds.

procede

25th Oct 2016, 21:00

I want some of what you're smoking ...

If you think aircraft noise is bad, try living next to a high speed rail line...

DaveReidUK

25th Oct 2016, 23:07

You will need to alternate (technically not mixed mode, as you are not using the gap between two arrivals for a departure) one runway to balance daily capacity if you have three runways.

I don't understand the distinction you seem to be trying to make. Interleaving arrivals with departures is exactly how one of the three runways would be used for most of the time. That's mixed mode in anybody's book.

It also works better with arrival and departure peaks (AMS uses this). As a departure runway has more capacity than one used for arrivals, departure mode will need to be used less often than arrival mode.Other than in the early morning and late evening, departure and arrival demand at Heathrow is pretty evenly matched. That, of course, is how the airport currently operates with its two runways, one designated as the landing runway and one for departures throughout most of the day (though on most days there are some arriving aircraft that land on the departure runway)

DaveReidUK

25th Oct 2016, 23:19

At a meeting with HAL.
Q What is that building alongside the proposed new runway is it Terminal 6?
Ans No. It is an extension to Terminal 5

Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right one is doing ....

Heathrow has today unveiled a new video animation that shows the world beneath Terminal 5 and Terminal 6 as it could look with expansion and rail upgrades.https://your.heathrow.com/takingbritainfurther/video-underneath-terminal-5-terminal-6-expansion/

inOban

25th Oct 2016, 23:58

I'm at the other end of the UK, and have a strange detachment from this discussion.

LHR may be the only Hub airport in the UK, but it is not the Hub airport for the large majority of the country. Even after R3 is built, only 14 UK airports will have links to it. At the present time, 26 have flights to AMS, which has become, de facto, our hub. Maybe this should never have happened, but it has. The ship has sailed.

The enlargement of LHR is not a National project, as I can't see how it will benefit anyone outside its local catchment area in the south.

ShotOne

26th Oct 2016, 05:43

"Gatwick made far more sense.." Except it's just in the wrong place, needing the full M25 experience even for residents of the South East. That said, we ought to expand LGW AS WELL

DaveReidUK

26th Oct 2016, 06:27

Even after R3 is built, only 14 UK airports will have links to it.

"Only" 14 ?

That figure seems wildly optimistic compared to other forecasts for domestic connectivity, including the Airport Commission's - where did you get it from ?

I would struggle to name 14 UK airports that have ever had links to LHR, even in the days when slots were 10 a penny, or could support services in the future with or without the proposed "ring-fencing".

Skipness One Echo

26th Oct 2016, 06:53

You can't see how it benefits anyone outside the south as well as being plugged into every major UK airport beyond sensible train usage range? You just contradicted yourself man. AMS is a good option but the double back coming back from tbe US is a pain.

oldchina

26th Oct 2016, 07:02

I would like to place a bet that in 2050 there will be a new airport offshore and that Heathrow will stay in business to serve local demand at Europe's biggest city.

Anyone know a bookie who'd quote for that?

P.S. It took Singapore 6.5 years from start of land reclamation to the official opening of Changi airport.

KelvinD

26th Oct 2016, 07:03

Listening to Mr Grayling this morning, it seems the tunnel beneath the M25 is now dead. The plan now is for a sloping runway, rising to 8m on a bridge over the M25.

procede

26th Oct 2016, 07:04

I don't understand the distinction you seem to be trying to make. Interleaving arrivals with departures is exactly how one of the three runways would be used for most of the time. That's mixed mode in anybody's book.

Other than in the early morning and late evening, departure and arrival demand at Heathrow is pretty evenly matched. That, of course, is how the airport currently operates with its two runways, one designated as the landing runway and one for departures throughout most of the day (though on most days there are some arriving aircraft that land on the departure runway)

With 'real' mixed mode, interleaving arrivals and departures, you can get up to 30 arrivals and 30 departures per runway per hour. Alternating means you get a linear trade off between 50 departures and 36 arrivals per hour. 'Real' mixed mode is complex (especially in combination with multiple runways) and is not possible if visibility is low, as visual confirmation is required to see if the preceding arrival has left the runway before the next aircraft departs.

That it is matched now does not mean the new slots will also be matched. It could very well be there will be 90 minutes of (~45) arrival slots and then 60 minutes of (~45) departure slots on the new runway. NATS will probably have a big say in this.

topgas

26th Oct 2016, 07:14

Not sure why the extended northern runway proposal (Heathrow Hub) hasn't had more consideration - cheaper, quicker, fewer homes lost, less noise, less pollution.
http://www.heathrowhub.com/Uploadedimages/Ogilvy%20Oct%202016.pdf
It's as if someone's got something against Harmondsworth :sad:

Herod

26th Oct 2016, 07:40

According to today's "Times", the plot will be to elevate the western end of the runway so that it clears the M25. The picture accompanying it shows a wonderfully sloping runway along it's full length. What a wonderful idea, until:

a. the slope prevents aircraft departing with sufficient fuel to reach their destinations, resulting in fuel stops.

b. an aircraft running off the "down" end, because of the slope.

c. an aircraft departing the runway, and landing on the M25 during rush hour.

However, I have full trust that the planners know exactly what they are doing. :ugh:

Basil

26th Oct 2016, 07:40

First proposed in 1974, the HK CLK airport opened in 1998 following a six-year construction that cost US$20 billion.
Enormous transport linkage including rail and road bridges was also built.

Source: Wiki (and Bas was there from 1997-2002)

Pretty impressive, eh?

DaveReidUK

26th Oct 2016, 07:43

With 'real' mixed mode, interleaving arrivals and departures, you can get up to 30 arrivals and 30 departures per runway per hour. Alternating means you get a linear trade off between 50 departures and 36 arrivals per hour. 'Real' mixed mode is complex (especially in combination with multiple runways) and is not possible if visibility is low, as visual confirmation is required to see if the preceding arrival has left the runway before the next aircraft departs.

That it is matched now does not mean the new slots will also be matched. It could very well be there will be 90 minutes of (~45) arrival slots and then 60 minutes of (~45) departure slots on the new runway. NATS will probably have a big say in this.

What you describe amounts to continuing to operate in segregated mode, albeit with the runway roles alternating several times per day instead of once a day as at present.

Interesting idea, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support the assertion that a 3-runway LHR would or could operate in that way.

On the contrary, Heathrow's published plan specifically quotes hourly runway capacities for the mode of operation I described in my earlier post:

Arrival runway: 38 movements per hour
Departure runway: 42 movements per hour
Mixed mode runway: 48 movements per hour

DaveReidUK

26th Oct 2016, 07:56

procede

26th Oct 2016, 08:32

Thanks for the numbers! The departure rate seems a bit conservative, while the arrival rate is a bit high, especially considering how many heavy's and super's Heathrow gets.

Mixed mode with 48 an hour, means 24 arrivals with an average separation time of 150 seconds. Gatwick has managed 55 movements an hour.

AMS uses two arrivals + one departure for arrival peaks and switches to one arrival and two departures for departure peaks. It can also operate 2+2 for a short time while switching (which is mostly limited by politics). This fits nicely with a hub and spoke system with banks of arriving and departing flight with passengers transferring in between.

I'm very surprised they have come up mixed mode, as the mixed mode trails a couple of years ago was a bit of a farce. I can also imagine it is somewhat of a trading chip. Hopefully we'll see in a few years what they finally come up with...

It there any idea on how the new slots will be distributed between BA and other carriers?

Lancman

26th Oct 2016, 08:32

The turn-offs could be interesting.

oldart

26th Oct 2016, 08:58

Listening to Mr Grayling this morning, it seems the tunnel beneath the M25 is now dead. The plan now is for a sloping runway, rising to 8m on a bridge over the M25.
Obviously he has taken the 'Hump'.

DaveReidUK

26th Oct 2016, 09:03

Thanks for the numbers! The departure rate seems a bit conservative, while the arrival rate is a bit high, especially considering how many heavy's and super's Heathrow gets.

Mixed mode with 48 an hour, means 24 arrivals with an average separation time of 150 seconds. Gatwick has managed 55 movements an hour.

Agreed. To quote from the document I referenced in my previous post:

"We have reduced the landing and departure maximum capacities from today's scheduled limits of 44 landings and 46 departures to reflect anticipated growth in average aircraft size over time and to increase future operational resilience. Similarly, we have made a dual use runway capacity assumption of 48 movements per hour, which is about 10% less than other major dual use runways operating near to capacity today and reflects the larger average aircraft size in use at Heathrow. This provides a combined sustainable capacity for the three runway system of 128 movements per hour."

GrahamO

26th Oct 2016, 09:07

I would like to place a bet that in 2050 there will be a new airport offshore

Its called any other European airport.

People don't want to fly to the Essex estuary to get to London. If they want to do that they can already fly to Stansted or Gatwick in the South.

Heathrow is 20 miles to the West of London.

Changi is 16 miles to the West of Singapore Central

Lantau is 25 miles to the east of Hong Kong Central.

All congested locations and Heathrow is in the right place - not a bird marsh 50+ miles away through an entire city and congested routes which took a decade to get the Channel Tunnel link through.

Prophead

26th Oct 2016, 09:20

An 8 metre elevation difference between each end of a 3500m runway represents a slope of 0.22%.

Manchester manages OK with more than double that amount.

Indeed, I doubt many of the older airport runways in operation were built within that tolerance. It's nothing.

oldchina

26th Oct 2016, 09:22

GrahamO

You make a fair point but I hope you're never piloting me around Singapore or Hong Kong (1/3 for geography !)

DaveReidUK

26th Oct 2016, 09:46

Curiously, in the last 24 hours Heathrow have removed references to R3 from its website:

Third runway plans (http://www.heathrow.com/noise/future-plans/third-runway-plans) (bad link)

Airports Commission timeline (http://www.heathrow.com/noise/future-plans/third-runway-plans/airports-commission-timeline) (bad link)

Future plans (http://www.heathrow.com/noise/future-plans) (R3 and Commission links lead back to the same page)

Reverserbucket

26th Oct 2016, 09:59

What about capacity on the ground though? I was on a day trip yesterday from T5: 42 min taxy, a significant proportion of which was holding for a slot, not sitting in the queue for 09R followed by a 43 min leg and 6 min taxy at the other end. Return last night included the usual +-10 min hold at LAM then 15 min holding on Bravo waiting for a stand. 15 mins is not unusual following an arrival on 27R (parking on 511 so reasonably close to the runway and in the direction of travel). Parking at one of the satellites typically takes an hour without bags to get to the MSCP so that 20 min high-speed rail link with LGW following transit via Heathrow Connect to the central area would likely take in excess of 180 mins reclaim to check-in.

I appreciate that the Heathrow East project is underway which, when completed will increase stand capacity, as much of the old T1 parking is unavailable, but with BA increasingly using T3 these days how will LHR cope with all these anticipated additional movements in terms of parking?

pax britanica

26th Oct 2016, 10:54

What a go on forever story.

If you live in Sipson or Harmondsworth it cannot have escaped you notice there was ahuge airport a mile down the road and since LHR inception much of the land north of LHR was left as agricultural because one day it would be a runway. A great many residents there are renters working at LHR. Peoplel should be properly compensated-Government always try an fiddle people on this one but it is no surprise.

People complaining about noise in west London mostly cannot hear the aircraft because of traffic noise, any incremental decibels due to aircraft noise would in these areas be tiny.

Gatwick is useless because with two runways it would only expand to what LHR is now and we would have two airprots neither fit for purpose.

A high speed rail link from LHR to LGW would have to be all underground (high speed trains cannot go around corners at high speed) and would cost about treble to the cost of a new runway at both airports .

The new runway would allow enourmous expansion of feeder flights from regional airports -oddly these are North of LHR and therefore all dowmstics can sue the new runway allowing more flights to MAn and EDI etc and new flights to places like Teesside, Humberside , Liverpool etc giving people in those areas realistic and wide ranging access to long haul flights

FullWings

26th Oct 2016, 11:10

People complaining about noise in west London mostly cannot hear the aircraft because of traffic noise, any incremental decibels due to aircraft noise would in these areas be tiny.
I agree, having lived in West London for a while. The major sources of noise were lorries, cars (with huge stereos), motorbikes with what seemed like no silencers, police cars, ambulances, fire engines, helicopters (police ones at night) and so on. The aircraft coming in and out of LHR were barely audible above that lot...

trident3A

26th Oct 2016, 11:53

I agree, having lived in West London for a while. The major sources of noise were lorries, cars (with huge stereos), motorbikes with what seemed like no silencers, police cars, ambulances, fire engines, helicopters (police ones at night) and so on. The aircraft coming in and out of LHR were barely audible above that lot...
I'm in Ealing and you hardly hear aircraft on Westerlies and even on Easterlies we're only overflown by a third or so of departures - plus modern aircraft are so much quieter than before. I'm never bothered by aircraft noise, I agree cars with loud stereos and motorbikes with loud exhausts are far worse. This whole is issue is politics at its worst, we should have got on with this 20 years ago.

beamender99

26th Oct 2016, 12:34

Not sure why the extended northern runway proposal (Heathrow Hub) hasn't had more consideration - cheaper, quicker, fewer homes lost, less noise, less pollution.

You mean runway 4 ? That will be the next battle after the current decision.

I note lots of worries about how to deal with the M25 but absolutely nothing about what happens to the A4 Bath Road, its hotels and it goes over the M25.
Oh and is BA's HQ - Waterside being demolished?

HamishMcBush

26th Oct 2016, 12:37

Maybe they should have taken over Greenham Common when it was vacated
That's what I wondered many years ago... a short link road to the M4 and also now the A34 and major road connections sorted for north-south and east-west. A high-speed rail link to LHR and/or to the main line from Paddington to Bristol and your rail links are also sorted out fairly quickly and cheaply. What is also needed is a high-speed direct rail link from LHR to LGW which should have been built when the M25 was first constructed as it could have run alongside the M25 for a majority of its length, then alongside the M23. Failing that, it should have been constructed more recently when the M25 western side was widened.

However, there's no evidence of any joined-up thinking or long-term planning by successive UK governments; what a surprise. not

gpzz

26th Oct 2016, 12:59

I've never understood why Manchester was never in the mix, it could have supported Osbornes "Northern Powerhouse" big idea very nicely.

Trinity 09L

26th Oct 2016, 13:22

Can the area to the west of the airport be considered, ie 70% of departures overfly and 30% arrivals. These arrivals in majority use the northern runway only, so noise from 4.45am till midnight.
No mention of the planning request by HAL to use the 09L for departures. The planning inspector finished his hearing in August 2015 and no result. If and when this is used together with R3 for departures, Ealing will wake up to the noise footprint they do not have now.

DaveReidUK

26th Oct 2016, 13:22

Maybe they should have taken over Greenham Common when it was vacated.

I've never understood why Manchester was never in the mix

All of the Airports Commission's reports are on their website, readily available for anyone to read why their favourite option was one of the 55 proposals not shortlisted and agree/disagree with the Commission's analysis.

Prophead

26th Oct 2016, 13:24

I've never understood why Manchester was never in the mix,

In the mix for what? Airport expansion in the SE?

I'm in Ealing and you hardly hear aircraft on Westerlies and even on Easterlies we're only overflown by a third or so of departures - plus modern aircraft are so much quieter than before. I'm never bothered by aircraft noise

Seeing these poor things on the news complaining about noise from the almost silent A380's it does make me wonder how I ever coped living in Slough in the 80's with the Tridents and Concorde. I really don't remember it being a problem or anybody complaining. This was probably long before many of these people chose to move near a major airport.

Andy_S

26th Oct 2016, 13:33

I've never understood why Manchester was never in the mix....

Maybe because it has two runways already?

PDR1

26th Oct 2016, 14:00

The enlargement of LHR is not a National project, as I can't see how it will benefit anyone outside its local catchment area in the south.

Exactly - it's a national project for the benefit of everyone of any significance.

PDR

PDR1

26th Oct 2016, 14:03

@Jonnymac
You are aware I take it that UK governments and their acolites are not aware of life outside the M25

That's why the new runway is being built there.

PDR

PDR1

26th Oct 2016, 14:04

That's what I wondered many years ago... a short link road to the M4 and also now the A34 and major road connections sorted for north-south and east-west.

Sorted??

You wouldn't say that if you ever had to USE the A34 and M4 in the Newbury area.

PDR

A30yoyo

26th Oct 2016, 14:36

Why is safety never mentioned in this debate? It seems obvious to me that an extra runway at each of the London airports would improve safety margins, reduce congestion and stress and why would providing extra runway capacity of itself increase the number of flights into the London area?

Gonzo

26th Oct 2016, 14:48

NATS will probably have a big say in this

Shoot. someone had best start working on it all.......

GASA

26th Oct 2016, 15:42

If, as some suggested, easy jet and others move from Gatwick to Heathrow can't Gatwick sue the government for 'picking a winner' and stifling their business. There's a real chance that this governmental decision directly hurts Gatwick. The conservatives generally like a free open economy without government getting in the way. This is the exact opposite. Surely giving them both a runway would have headed off that problem somewhat.

inOban

26th Oct 2016, 15:59

Thanks for your comments.

As I have said in other postings, I am a transport geek, not a frequent flyer. I am well aware that some other posters have access to data which I do not.

1. I understand that at present 8 UK airports have LHR flights, and that yesterday the Gov promised another 6. That made 14 when I was at school.

2. Scotland, where I live, has a wide choice of Hub airports to choose from, depending on one's destination.

North America: Some will use LHR, others AMS, which is little further in the wrong direction - in either case you are likely to end up flying over my house - while others will use EWR or JFK. Those in search of a low cost route will use Icelandair or WOW to access a wide range of destinations from Reykjavik.

The Far East, S Asia and Australasia: we are spoilt for choice. Helsinki? Stockholm? CPH? AMS? Istanbul? The ME3? I think the latter are particularly popular because they split a very long flight into two survivable chunks.

Africa: I think most people do use LHR, but Istanbul and the ME3 also . And for W Africa, Paris gives access to the francophone countries.

S and Central America: Madrid reaches more places than LHR, I believe.

All of the above applies, to some extent, to everywhere from Birmingham N, and to flight only traffic. Package and cruise traffic will tend to take the train coach or car to MAN.

To be blunt, and I am aware that this is difficult to understand for those living in foreign parts (ie London), if LHR shut down tomorrow it would only cause mild inconvenience to long haul passengers from Scotland and the north of England. I suggest that posters read today's postings in the Manchester thread.

KelvinD

26th Oct 2016, 16:12

Oh! Here we go!
BBC is now reporting a gently sloping runway as a "ramp over the M25" and in the news headlines even referred to planes taking off up this ramp! Usuall, it is only the 3 morning savages (Humphrey, Robinson and Monatgue) that get me exercised but it seems the BBC are trying harder to get me effing and blinding at the bloody wireless!

DaveReidUK

26th Oct 2016, 16:48

I understand that at present 8 UK airports have LHR flights, and that yesterday the Gov promised another 6. That made 14 when I was at school.

Nothing wrong with your arithmetic. :O

The problem is "the Government promised ..." bit.

No government can tell airlines where to fly to. All it can do is to cajole and encourage them to serve favoured destinations. Whether the airlines play ball is largely down to how they view the potential profitability of a route or, as in the case of some internal Scottish routes, if there's a government subsidy for operating them (which clearly isn't going to apply to Heathrow routes).

The best that Westminster can come up with is a rather dubious offer to "ring-fence" a handful of slots for domestic routes (out of the 120,000 or so extra slot pairs that R3 would provide).

Hmmm ...

pax britanica

26th Oct 2016, 17:34

If shutting LHR would make difference to Scots LH pax why do BA run all those shuttle flights to GLA EDI BFS etc just for internal travel-I don't think so. The reason people do not transit in LHR is because there are not enough feeder flights and a new Northern runway allows for much much more usage of UK domestics.

You almost have to be over the average life expectancy to claim you were in richmond or Hounslow or Windsor before LHR was built and as has been pointed out we are not talking about 707s and VC10s here but huge fan engines witha very low and non intrusive noise signature -if you dont belive me drive round the southern perimeter road at LHR when they are on easterlies, park up for ten minutes at the gas station opposite T5 and close to the line up end of 09. Then reflect for a minute that you can barely , if at all, hear a fully loaded triple 7 or A380 with engines pretty much at max thrust above the traffic noise. Noise is a complete red herring these days unless you live under the 27R approach in Cranford.

So onto pollution. yes aircraft contribute to the greenhouse gas effect but how much of it is actually close to an airport. On approach engines are at flight idle until close in and take off while at high power is onlya small segment of the whole flight. So its not an unreasonable assumption that most 'pollution' occurs in the cruise -upto 12-14 hours these days . These flights will still take place whether from LHR or not and with another runway a lot of the time in the hold will be reduced making some savings. So its another fallacy, road traffic is far far worse and if you do not like pollution don't live near a huge airport and don,t live in London. Another specious argument to allow unethical law firms to play out for years and years earnign them plots of money some of which they will spend flying on holidays and business from LHR since they tend to like living in Chiswick, Kew Fulham Putney etc

inOban

26th Oct 2016, 18:06

As I said in my post, I don't have access to the data regarding the proportion of domestic LHR passengers who are feeding longhaul. Perhaps another poster knows. Certainly the extra flights on a Friday, and the reduction at the weekend, suggests a lot of domestic?

silverstrata

26th Oct 2016, 19:36

LHR vs the Silver-Boris Thames Airport.

This has already been debated at great length in this thread. All the problems and benefits, and more besides, have been fully mulled over.....

http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/469575-new-thames-airport-london-9.html

Silver

underfire

26th Oct 2016, 23:06

If it is to be used as a hub, why is Gatwick in the wrong place?

Inoban, I was also looking for the stats on LHR throughput as a hub, how many people destination is LHR vs how many use as a hub connection point.

So onto pollution. yes aircraft contribute to the greenhouse gas effect but how much of it is actually close to an airport. On approach engines are at flight idle until close in and take off while at high power is only a small segment of the whole flight.

When engines are at reduced thrust in the landing cycle (below 3000 feet), this is when the most pollution occurs, with lower temp and incomplete burn. The primary issue here is Nitrogen Oxides. As noted in the report, High levels of NOx, particularly NO2, are a matter of concern for air quality near major airports. For example, current NO2 concentrations breach the UK annual mean air quality objective (40 mg m#3) at some locations around Heathrow, (2006)
Santoni et al. (2011) measured N2O emissions from a CFM56-2C1 engine and concluded that at low thrust EI N2O were 110 ± 50 mg kg Fuel#1 (mean ± standard deviation), while a drop of emissions was observed at higher thrust levels (32 ± 18 mg kg Fuel#1).

In the beginning of RNP procedures, they were touted as polluting less due to idle thrust on final, until it was shown that idle thrust produces far more pollutants. Then they were touted as saving fuel...

I thought this was interesting as well, as this was actually brought up in a meeting about increasing throughput with RECAT DEP...

According to Airports Council International, 62% of airport revenue comes from passengers paying for concessions, and only 38% comes from the airlines themselves.
"There's a clash of motives or interests in designing these airports," Gidei said. "People running them want them efficient and easy to manage, travellers ideally probably want to bypass them altogether, the people that spend the money to build them want to get their investment back, so it's a divergent set of requirements that you just can't get a good result out of."

Skipness One Echo

27th Oct 2016, 06:54

Gatwick is remote from the M4 corridor that LHR supports enormously in terms of attracting businesses to be based in the SE. Much of LGW's catchment area by comparison is aquatic marine life due its proximity to the coast.

andyhargreaves

27th Oct 2016, 07:17

In amongst all this, there was one golden nugget from BBC R4 yesterday. Talking about the plan to build a tunnel for the runway to go through...

Actually, building the whole thing indoors sounds sensible. Take away many of the issues with weather etc. :}

DaveReidUK

27th Oct 2016, 07:47

In amongst all this, there was one golden nugget from BBC R4 yesterday. Talking about the plan to build a tunnel for the runway to go through...

Yes, that's just plain silly.

Building a bridge to take the M25 over the runway would be far cheaper.

c52

27th Oct 2016, 08:01

Some aircraft enthusiasts must have become deaf through repeated exposure to afterburners.

My daughter lives in Barnes, roughly beneath the approach to 27L. When it's in use for landing, it's not possible to have a normal conversation outside. The noise itself, I would say, is not so bad as to make gardening alone unpleasant. But then I am an aircraft enthusiast.

Prophead

27th Oct 2016, 08:57

My daughter lives in Barnes, roughly beneath the approach to 27L. When it's in use for landing, it's not possible to have a normal conversation outside.

How long has she lived there? The point is, if she has been there for a long time then the noise was probably louder when she chose to move beneath the approach that it is now. Same goes for aircraft related pollution levels etc.

procede

27th Oct 2016, 09:16

When engines are at reduced thrust in the landing cycle (below 3000 feet), this is when the most pollution occurs, with lower temp and incomplete burn. The primary issue here is Nitrogen Oxides.

NOx is produced at high pressures and burn temperatures (when oxygen reacts with nitrogen) , which coincide with high thrust settings. Low thrust settings result in incomplete combustion and results in things like hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.

I think the research you quote is on how much concentration of only N2O there is, not all NxOx compounds. Also it is per kg fuel (fuel flow at idle is much lower). Plus they used DC-8 era engines...

Navpi

27th Oct 2016, 13:33

Heathrow overvalued by £86bn | News | The Times & The Sunday Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/heathrow-overvalued-by-86bn-lx2w5tfnh?CMP=Spklr-_-Editorial-_-TWITTER-_-thetimes-_-20161027-_-News-_-636963072&linkId=30390729)

MANFOD

27th Oct 2016, 14:13

What a surprise Navpi.

I did hear the £61bn quoted on the BBC but I assumed that was over a shorter time frame.
Bit of an embarrassment if it is 60 years and the Times have got it right.

daikilo

27th Oct 2016, 15:05

Even more embarrassing if the benefit curve were actually to be better for LGW in the early years ... (no idea if it is or not).

portmanteau

27th Oct 2016, 17:01

How mad can this all get? Decide on something then rip up the plan for another even barmier one while suddenly disputing costs by tens of billions. Thats £10million worth of Davies Commission dumped. Is it really not possible to build it alongside 09/27 and use that spare land east of the M4 extension into the airport? Think of the savings... no need to disturb M25 and BA HQ and Incinerator Plant etc etc. An M4 Extension tunnel under a runway would cost peanuts in comparison. As for a bridge over M25, give me strength, they'll be proposing tying two runways together next. Oh they have....
Davies report said M25 would have to be lowered 9 feet in order to pass under runway.
Sounds a far simpler cut and cover task than a monumental sized "bridge"to accomodate
runway, two taxiways, service roads, hard shoulders, flower beds, you name it...