Heathrow expansion

[jcw8]

British Government has just announced 3rd runway for Heathrow. A decision at last

[The Ancient Geek]

It has been approved by Cabinet.
This means nothing until it wins a vote in both the Commons and The Lords.
Expect a rebellion in both houses.

[6000PIC]

My 2 pence ? Approve it , build it , get it done. The UK needs this vital infrastructure.

[vctenderness]

In my opinion major infrastructure projects should not have to go through this laughable process.

At the outset a period for consultation and raised objections should be set at no longer than one year.

Any serious objection should be swiftly considered and if needed plans altered to accommodate.

The government of the day should then have the right to go ahead without recourse to either parliament or The House of old greedy Scoungers, sorry The Lords!

[pax britanica]

Ridiculously long time for a decision only to be eclipsed by the ridiculous budget over runs .

UK needs a global hub airport which LHR just about is but soon won't be without this and expanding LGW or MAN would just give us three sub par hub airports. The area north of LHR has been expecting this for 25 years and other than the usual attempt by the government to swindle Joe public on compensation should be plainish sailing as all of that area depends on LHR and its adjuncts for economic prosperity.

Obvoiously there will be the usual green objections -often well founded but not this time and from individual MPs usually representing places miles away who claim it will affect them.

Strange the way some people talk about he Lords these days-because they have a mind of their own maybe? But they are integral to our democracy as we dont have much in the way of checks and balances and doing away with the Lords is the first step to doing away with the Monarchy

[EDLB]

Similar in Germany. Infrastructure projects take forever. In China they would just fire up some D9T and clear up the neighbourhood.

[Herod]

Well, there goes quality of life for several (hundred?) thousand people. Houses demolished, new roads built and traffic to fill them, noise and pollution, way above what should be permitted. It's about time someone realised that because a field was selected as London Airport immediately after the war doesn't mean it's the right place for the foreseeable future. This argument will still run for a long time.

[Chronus]

By the time they build it they will need a 4th runway

Meanwhile in Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris................

.......Or we won`t need one at all, as we will be saying beam me up Scotty to our mobile phones.

[stephenkeane]

The length of time taken to come to this decision is for political reasons. Mainly Tory MPs around West London worried about losing their seats if the expansion goes ahead. There will fierce opposition to this, so expect every delaying tactic going to be used. Fact is the UK is losing business to bigger continental hubs, so now the decision has been made get on with it. I wont hold my breath though.

[PerPurumTonantes]

No need for third runway. Just stop people using Heathrow as a Europe to USA transfer lounge.

Percentage of transfer passengers: 30% (https://www.heathrow.com/company/company-news-and-information/company-information/facts-and-figures).

Let's say half of them are transferring to UK airports. That leaves 15% of Heathrow's traffic doing next to nothing for us, bar an airside Costa and souvenir Beefeater. Just flying in and out.

Simply tax non-UK transfers at double APD. Instantly capacity freed up for people who people who actually come to the UK and contribute to the UK economy. No need for third runway. Problem solved :cool:

[llondel]

As a hub airport, LHR is pretty dire with the amount of walking and messing around with buses. I will admit I've never had to connect through the airport but friends who have do not say polite things about it.

As for the third runway, as I understand it, the traffic is already there, flying round in circles waiting for a landing slot, burning fuel that would be saved if there was another runway to use. That's a point that needs to be emphasised when environmental concerns are raised, that it would potentially improve things.

[woptb]

Didn’t Boris say he’d lay in front of the bulldozers? Here’s hoping🤡

[Tray Surfer]

Just get the thing blinking thing built...

As already mentioned, no doubt the snow flakes will rebel in both houses when it comes to the vote.

This country is already far behind a lot of Europe and the world when it comes to airport infrastructure. Just get on with it.

[downunderupover]

Didn’t Boris say he’d lay in front of the bulldozers?
Boris said he'd "lie [sic] down in front of the bulldozers." There has been no offer to produce eggs.

[woptb]

Pedantry can be a force for good!

[Coochycool]

As one who readily admits to knowing aproximately naff all about it, could someone one here please help me understand why instead of building an adjacent parallel runway like many other major ports, we need to commandeer half of Middlesex to make this happen? And in any case, whatever they build, I thought an overriding issue was that the airspace was pretty crammed thereabouts not just the ground 😕

[rationalfunctions]

No need for third runway. Just stop people using Heathrow as a Europe to USA transfer lounge.

Percentage of transfer passengers: 30%.

Let's say half of them are transferring to UK airports. That leaves 15% of Heathrow's traffic doing next to nothing for us, bar an airside Costa and souvenir Beefeater. Just flying in and out.

Simply tax non-UK transfers at double APD. Instantly capacity freed up for people who people who actually come to the UK and contribute to the UK economy. No need for third runway. Problem solved :cool:

Don't underestimate this type of transfer passengers - they help to sustain the economic viability of many routes. Or put another way, if due to additional costs/taxation for these pax it is more profitable to operate routes through other European hubs the UK may lose some of their US and European connectivity.

[Willoz269]

Don't underestimate this type of transfer passengers - they help to sustain the economic viability of many routes. Or put another way, if due to additional costs/taxation for these pax it is more profitable to operate routes through other European hubs the UK may lose some of their US and European connectivity.

Spot on...this is not an excercise in building infrastructure.....there are serious dollars involved. Heathrow brings in a lot of money to the economy, and the last thing they want is to push lucrative traffic and SLF elsewhere.

[ph-sbe]

It's about time someone realised that because a field was selected as London Airport immediately after the war doesn't mean it's the right place for the foreseeable future. This argument will still run for a long time.

It's about time that someone realized that once an airport is there, you should not be building residential neighborhoods around it. Problem is: people want convenient access to a large international airport, but don't want it in their backyard. You see the same thing all around the world: airports built in the 50s, 60s and 70s, and then residential neighborhoods being built around them. And 30 years later, people complain about the noise and pollution, and demand that the airports be closed or moved. I do feel sorry for the inconvenience, but 99.9% of people knew about the airport before they moved in. I live within 10 miles of an airport myself, and I knew that when I bought my house. Of course I can't go and demand that the airport be moved. I work within 1 mile of an airport. In fact, I walked to my interview from the airport on interview day. Yes, it can get noise in the office during peak times. But I knew that before I accepted the job offer. Want me to hold up a sign to move the airport? Of course not.

Heathrow is a vital piece of infrastructure to the U.K. economy. Those transfer passengers are flown in and flown out by U.K. based airlines, bringing U.K. based jobs and U.K. based revenue.

That said, there are many options to mitigate the impact to the surrounding communities: alternate flight paths, a ban on scheduled flights between 11pm and 6am, and many other things. These should all be considered so that Heathrow can at least try to be a good neighbor.

[ShotOne]

To place the increased noise argument in context, yes there will be more flights. But aircraft noise footprints are a fraction of what they were thirty or so years ago. Likewise, Heathrow has been a major international airport for the entire lifetimes of almost everyone now protesting. They're already being (over?)generously compensated. But if the nimbys are allowed to block this, UK plc is truly screwed.

[Herod]

I don't think anyone is disputing the need for another runway in the southeast, just that LHR is the wrong place for it. Other options could well be Gatwick, Stansted, or (should I open a can of worms?) Boris Island.

[GrahamO]

I don't think anyone is disputing the need for another runway in the southeast, just that LHR is the wrong place for it.

Why would anyone want to transit in a city with two airports and a couple of hours road/rail transport between them ?

The idea of Boris Island would be a joke - 40/50 miles away from the area that people want to come to which is London.

[ShotOne]

If we were starting with a clean sheet I'd agree totally; my vote would be for Boris Island. But we're not. It's years, decades, down the line. Starting the process afresh for an alternative site means kicking the can, already far overdue, years back down the road. It's not a theoretical debating exercise, the capacity is desperately needed now, not in 15 or 20 years.

[PerPurumTonantes]

Don't underestimate this type of transfer passengers - they help to sustain the economic viability of many routes. Or put another way, if due to additional costs/taxation for these pax it is more profitable to operate routes through other European hubs the UK may lose some of their US and European connectivity.

If the routes are unsustainable without transit passengers, we should free up the slots for flights that DO generate income for the UK. We don't need 29 flights/day to New York. Why not an hourly service and give 10 slots to new routes? This way we increase connectivity, to new cities.

And some decent rail lines to Heathrow - compared to AMS it's embarassing. West to Bristol and North to Bhm/Leeds/Manchester at least. There's another 9 slots I've just freed up for you :cool:

[rationalfunctions]

If the routes are unsustainable without transit passengers, we should free up the slots for flights that DO generate income for the UK. We don't need 29 flights/day to New York. Why not an hourly service and give 10 slots to new routes? This way we increase connectivity, to new cities.

And some decent rail lines to Heathrow - compared to AMS it's embarassing. West to Bristol and North to Bhm/Leeds/Manchester at least. There's another 9 slots I've just freed up for you :cool:

Agreed in principle. However the market does the talking, especially when operating at capacity, so my opinion is that expansion is required to really make a difference in growing connectivity

[Sailvi767]

If the routes are unsustainable without transit passengers, we should free up the slots for flights that DO generate income for the UK. We don't need 29 flights/day to New York. Why not an hourly service and give 10 slots to new routes? This way we increase connectivity, to new cities.

And some decent rail lines to Heathrow - compared to AMS it's embarassing. West to Bristol and North to Bhm/Leeds/Manchester at least. There's another 9 slots I've just freed up for you :cool:

LHR to NYC might well be the single most lucrative route in the world. You are correct they don’t need 29 flights a day. They probably need closer to 50.

[wiggy]

If the routes are unsustainable without transit passengers, we should free up the slots for flights that DO generate income for the UK. We don't need 29 flights/day to New York. Why not an hourly service and give 10 slots to new routes? This way we increase connectivity, to new cities.


As others have said..follow the money..

Various airlines operating out of LHR try diversifying from time to time but ultimately the banker has been the likes of LHR-JFK/EWR...

Now if you want to encourage connectivity out of airport which is slot limited you are going to have to encourage airlines to take a gamble, pull resources off a lucrative route and try out open of these "new" city pairs........

[Ancient Observer]

Heathrow expansion with a 3rd runway will not happen. The NoX figures will prevent it. Even Heathrow airport itself in its 2014 report on NOX said that one has to assume zero traffic growth, and herculean other changes dreamt up in its Mitigation Strategy document, to get the NOX down to legal levels. They have not updated this report as I guess they've lost their flying pigs.
It is also advocating moving the NOX meters to where they won't find any NOX. Clever, huh!.

As to noise, while airlines, BA in particular, continue to use RR engined 747s the noise will not decrease. It still has c 36 of them, with, apparently, something like 34 "in storage" (??) (Airfleets.net). They are supposed to be all gone in 6 years time. And pigs might fly.

The real solution? - Build Boris Island with 21st century rail links and flog off LHR to the highest bidder to use for offices/housing/whatever. In the meantime, build LGW2 free from public subsidy, (and flatten the Belgrano)

[BAengineer]

Heathrow expansion with a 3rd runway will not happen. The NoX figures will prevent it.

Surely the NoX figures are the same if you build an airport on the West of London or the East - the effect on the environment from the same amount of aircraft is going to be identical.

[bvcu]

Full of narrowbodies and now turbo-props , drop APD then people fly direct rather than to european low tax hub then long haul !

[BluSdUp]

A few facts:
Anyone that has flown over London on a clear night can identify LHR: Two parallel runways , east/west with a dark parallel area to the north of it.
The real-estate has already been purchased , I suppose.
By the time the first aircraft takes off on the new rwy, all the big noise makers are gone.
( Ca 20 years ago we transited from Norway to Winnipeg and had to have a night at an airport hotel. In the morning we were up and getting ready on a nice and sunny day, then this THUNDER started. Me and my 4 year old ran to the window and got a great view of the BA Concorde taking off. All worth the expensive hotel.Now that was NOISE!!!)
I also do not understand why the parallel offset rwy proposed in STN is not build with a 300kmh speed train.
EVERY new airport build in the world has a Downtown highspeed rail connection.
We opened ours in October 1998 at GRM Gardermoen , now called OSL after great protracted controversy , sabotage of metdata for alternate site Hurum and a murder!!!
But all agreed it had to be done. So we did. Simples.
Anyone that has been to OSL knows that this is well functioning airport, with less then 23 min train the 55km to Downtown Oslo, every 15 minutes.

Anyway, I feel sorry for You Brits, and please take this as constructive criticism, but, You seem to be experts on other lands and peoples problems , and totally unable to see what to do in Your own back yard. Try at least to approach modern standards.
Its all well and good in small villages to stay in the past and attract the odd tourist , but The Empire that brought transport to many a corner of the Earth is now stacking inbound traffic into the stratosphere inbound Heathrow.

And one last on, that I could regret," After a Hard Brexit there will be no need".

Anyway
Good luck

[wiggy]

BA in particular, continue to use RR engined 747s the noise will not decrease. It still has c 36 of them, with, apparently, something like 34 "in storage" (??) (Airfleets.net). They are supposed to be all gone in 6 years time. And pigs might fly.

So according to “airfleets” BA had 70 744’s on their books? Probably a good job you put the ?? in there. I thought at it’s peak the BA fleet was in the upper 50’s (?58). As far as the retired airframes go I’m not sure what is meant by “storing” ... AFAIK BA haven’t got 34 intact 744’s on a shelf somewhere, certainly some of the former BA airframes went to the desert for good.

I’d agree aviation is a funny old game, you never known what’s around the corner (cf. the current 788 problems) but looking at the 788 and A350 delivery schedules, plus the way internal pilot postings are being promulgated and handled if BA do have any 744’s left in another 6 years it’ll be a handful of any at all.

[Gove N.T.]

"13,396 noise complaints lodged in the first three months of this year."

Dreadful -Poor Local Residents.... BUT Wait a sec.

"Nearly two-thirds of those complaints came from the same 10 people - making up a whopping 8,744 complaints between them"

Now i seldom read red tops (papers one reads if there's nothing else) but this serial complaint caught my eye when searching on the internet for noise complaints in my area of SW London.

https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/946849/heathrow-airport-noise-complaints-drop-uk-busiest-airport

[ShotOne]

My local airport last year generated 190 noise complaints about flights which hadn't yet taken off! The duty nimbys hadn't updated their computers to clock change. Again, over 1300 complaints from just three individuals. Wouldn't be surprised if some of them are contributing to this thread, particularly those accepting the need but demanding it be anywhere but LHR.

[modelflyer]

I don't think anyone is disputing the need for another runway in the southeast, just that LHR is the wrong place for it. Other options could well be Gatwick, Stansted, or (should I open a can of worms?) Boris Island.

I thought for one awful moment I might see Luton on your list. Terrible place and getting worse for passengers the more they do to it.

[Herod]

Hi modelflyer. Nope, not Luton, and I did say Boris Island would open a can of worms. That was just to do that very thing. Let's discuss Gatwick and Stansted, and decent rail links.

[ex-EGLL]

Having grown up in Cranford (~ 1 mile back from the threshold of what was then 28R) in the era of B707, DC8, VC10, Conc etc. I know what noise is! I occasionally go back to the Cranford area and the noise level is so much lower these days, so I would suggest that the overall disruption to life is far less now than it was 30 - 40 years ago; however if you move from an area with no aircraft to the Heathrow area then of course there will be more noise than you are used to, but it was your choice to move.

[dsc810]

As far better solution UK wide solution would be a new airport in Northamptonshire/Buckinghamshire area in the vicinity of the high speed rail HS2 route with links to it.

[pax britanica]

Blue side up

Well done , you got to the heart of the matter in one sentence.
we in the UK are so great at telling everyone else what to do but cannot do it ourselves. practising and preaching.!

The area north of LHR is extremely underpopulated compared with most of west London and includes agricultural land , gravel workings and alot of wasteland. Why , because just for once someone back in the 50s thought maybe one day they will need another runway. So the space is there already not all of it but a lot.

As for the build a runway at LGW or MAN they just cont get it do they . All big cities need an interchange airport where transit passengers are a significant proportion of users but tis not just about proving that service adding these to O&D pax and you can justify new routes. . Another runway at LGW just means more Easyjet and they only fly to Europe the land we hate and despise so much apparently. No one in their right mind is going to travel from LGW to LHR let alone Manchester and as for Boris island I think the whole country maybe even the whole world knows anything proposed by that idiot cannot possibly have any merit . How would all the immense number of business people who live in the LHR catchment area get to the Isle of Sheppy -high speed train maybe , by 2025 that will cost about the same a cheap Y ticket to JFK before you even get on the plane. And as for noise pollution-hello what do you think those shiny silver things flying over every day are doing

[sirwa69]

When a third runway was first mooted for LHR BA were all in favour as it would grant them more landing slots and the ability to grow. Have you noticed now that BA seem to be a bit more reticent about the proposed 3rd runway. Maybe they have just realised that Waterworld is slap bang in the middle of it. So BA are going to have to move to a new HQ wonder where their going to find the land? Madrid maybe!

[wiggy]

When a third runway was first mooted for LHR BA were all in favour as it would grant them more landing slots and the ability to grow. Have you noticed now that BA seem to be a bit more reticent about the proposed 3rd runway. Maybe they have just realised that Waterworld is slap bang in the middle of it. So BA are going to have to move to a new HQ wonder where their going to find the land? Madrid maybe!

Naah, the whole Waterside/ R3 vulnerability has been a known issue ever since Waterside was planned..

[FullWings]

By the time the first plane leaves the tarmac of the 3rd runway, most/all of the noisiest airframes will have gone and there’ll probably be a significant number of hybrid/electric aeroplanes operating out of LHR.

As pointed out above, the likely location for the new runway is mostly open land that has been left that way for a long time (look at Google maps satellite pic (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Heathrow+Airport/@51.4736902,-0.445085,6252m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48767234cdc56de9:0x8fe7535543f6416 7!8m2!3d51.4700223!4d-0.4542955)), for this precise reason. Compared with, say, HS2, the impact will be minimal and the benefit more material.

I don’t believe that many people moved into the immediate area of Heathrow in the last 50 years without noticing there was one of the busiest airports in the world there - in fact a large percentage will have done this because of employment caused by LHR. Also, things have come a long way since the days of Concorde, Trident, 1-11 and 737-200 in terms of absolute noise and noise footprint. I lived in West London for a while and was more disturbed by motorbikes, lorries, plus police sirens and helicopters at 2am; the jets got mostly drowned out by the ambient racket...

Naah, the whole Waterside/ R3 vulnerability has been a known issue ever since Waterside was planned..
And I expect they are looking forward to the compensation!

[Airbanda]

As far better solution UK wide solution would be a new airport in Northamptonshire/Buckinghamshire area in the vicinity of the high speed rail HS2 route with links to it.

The Wing/Cublington/Stewkley or Yardley Chase proposals of Roskill Commission and later ride again?

Are words 'No Airport Here' still visible on a railway overbridge near Cheddington?

OK for access to Central London. Not so good for London's residential hinterland.

And I'd try not to be a nimby if it were in Northants.

[lonkmu]

I live South East of Heathrow near Hampton Court Palace and I have seen a marked increase in noise in my garden in the past few years. Obviously more noticeable in the last 10 days as one is either in the garden during the day or at night have all the windows open. Can notice a huge difference between modern Dreamliners and A380 vs older 747 (my favourite)

I am guessing more frequent when easterly is blowing as they taking off into the wind but not 100% on that

Now don't get me wrong I love aeroplanes and have done all my life (17 years on Pprune and counting) - growing up in South Africa in the 70's it was a special treat to see the daily Boeing go over (the old saying phrase was "Is it too early for a beer? Well has the Boeing gone over yet? - if yes then its not too early!!!)

Can anyone on here suggest a good website to find out what the potential air traffic increase will be for different areas around LHR so we can get an idea of potential degradation of house values?

Google is not helping on this occasion

Many thanks

[flying phil 2007]

The alternative proposal to extend the Northern Runway and divide it into two seems a bit wacky but has some interesting people backing it..
https://www.heathrowhub.com/our-proposal.aspx

[beamender99]

Google is not helping on this occasion

heathrow third runway flight path map seems to get a lot of hits

[DaveReidUK]

Good luck finding anything remotely definitive. :O

If you listened to the expansion debate in Parliament last week, a common theme in the comments from MPs with constituencies in the southeast was the lack of available information on likely flightpaths.

[infrequentflyer789]

I live South East of Heathrow near Hampton Court Palace and I have seen a marked increase in noise in my garden in the past few years. Obviously more noticeable in the last 10 days as one is either in the garden during the day or at night have all the windows open. Can notice a huge difference between modern Dreamliners and A380 vs older 747 (my favourite)


Officially, Heathrow's measured noise footprint is the smallest ever - New report shows Heathrow's noise footprint at smallest recorded levels - Your Heathrow (http://your.heathrow.com/new-report-shows-heathrows-noise-footprint-smallest-recorded-levels/)
A380s also measure quieter than older 747s, which, given that they are almost one and a half 747s, is pretty good.

However, the one thing I have learnt from 20+ years living only a couple of miles (as stuff flies) from an airport and nearly under flight path, is that annoyance is very very very subjective and dependent on an awful lot of variables. Older jets (so far as I can tell from my limited identification capabilities :-) ) are almost always louder, but it will also depend on engine type, load, fuel load (how far it's going), atmospheric conditions (not just wind), heck on approach the exact point the AT/PF decides to spool up can make the difference between lying in the garden with eyes shut wondering if that was a plane going over or not, and suddenly waking up thinking "thats a loud one". Military is typically louder still (that's big(ish) stuff, don't usually get fighters in, you probably don't get any mil stuff at all at Heathrow) - not just because it's older but also because they don't stick to the usual flight paths and it doesn't sound like they pay the engine mfrs every time they firewall the throttles either...

Ironically the loudest passenger jet (by far) is the one we haven't seen going over since early this century, won't ever again, and I miss it.

Within next decade we'll probably have small hybrid jets, big ones the decade after, and a decade after that (or maybe earlier after the proven "success" with cars) we'll have people campaigning for the noise to be put back in (maybe you'll be able to request they play "old 747" on approach!). When a small jet can almost (not quite) sneak up on you at 100ft it's scary (seen it with BAe 146 in the 80s), if an electric heavy does it it'll cause heart attacks and road accidents and who knows what.


Can anyone on here suggest a good website to find out what the potential air traffic increase will be for different areas around LHR so we can get an idea of potential degradation of house values?


Heathrow's own website, and Hacan - HACAN A voice for those under Heathrow flightpaths (http://hacan.org.uk) have a lot of info.

You won't find that exact info though (which may be why google isn't helping) because Heathrow airspace is going to get completely redesigned (with or without R3) so no one knows yet - search for "flight path changes" on the Hacan page for the timetable and consultation process. With or without R3 it'll probably get better for some, worse for some, and quieter overall (continuing the trend), but the complaints will continue because that is what we do in this country - if it was closed tomorrow plenty of people would complain about that.

[DaveReidUK]

Officially, Heathrow's measured noise footprint is the smallest ever - New report shows Heathrow's noise footprint at smallest recorded levels - Your Heathrow (http://your.heathrow.com/new-report-shows-heathrows-noise-footprint-smallest-recorded-levels/)

I'd be wary of something that purports to show that noise levels are measured in "dAB", whatever they are.

But then again, it's the same article that peddles the nonsense about Air India being the "greenest" airline at Heathrow, when it turns out that AI's poor performance for track-keeping and NOx emissions hasn't been factored into the scoring. :ugh:

[scifi]

Third runway, Boris Island... There is another option, using Northolt Airfield, which is nearer Central London and would enable a few more hundred flights per day. It would also help reduce defence spending, if the RAF were relocated.
I took a photo of a Vulcan Bomber from the West End Road about 60 years ago, and some snooty RAF Gaurdsman (with dog.) told me to 'clear orf' as it was a military area...
.

[blakmax]

Having flown into LHR T2 last week, something really needs to be done about the queues in immigration. Took me 2.5 hrs as a non-resident colonial to get through. Add half way through the lineup I came across a sign telling me that the new faster immigration system had arrived. Strewth, I'd hate to see the old one.

Forget the runway. Fix the infrastructure that is there! Surely if tourists bring in billions to the economy then it is the country's interest to encourage them back again.

[Gove N.T.]

Officially, Heathrow's measured noise footprint is the smallest ever - New report shows Heathrow's noise footprint at smallest recorded levels - Your Heathrow (http://your.heathrow.com/new-report-shows-heathrows-noise-footprint-smallest-recorded-levels/)
A380s also measure quieter than older 747s, which, given that they are almost one and a half 747s, is pretty good.

However, the one thing I have learnt from 20+ years living only a couple of miles (as stuff flies) from an airport and nearly under flight path, is that annoyance is very very very subjective and dependent on an awful lot of variables. Older jets (so far as I can tell from my limited identification capabilities :-) ) are almost always louder, but it will also depend on engine type, load, fuel load (how far it's going), atmospheric conditions (not just wind), heck on approach the exact point the AT/PF decides to spool up can make the difference between lying in the garden with eyes shut wondering if that was a plane going over or not, and suddenly waking up thinking "thats a loud one". Military is typically louder still (that's big(ish) stuff, don't usually get fighters in, you probably don't get any mil stuff at all at Heathrow) - not just because it's older but also because they don't stick to the usual flight paths and it doesn't sound like they pay the engine mfrs every time they firewall the throttles either...

Ironically the loudest passenger jet (by far) is the one we haven't seen going over since early this century, won't ever again, and I miss it.

Within next decade we'll probably have small hybrid jets, big ones the decade after, and a decade after that (or maybe earlier after the proven "success" with cars) we'll have people campaigning for the noise to be put back in (maybe you'll be able to request they play "old 747" on approach!). When a small jet can almost (not quite) sneak up on you at 100ft it's scary (seen it with BAe 146 in the 80s), if an electric heavy does it it'll cause heart attacks and road accidents and who knows what.



Heathrow's own website, and Hacan - HACAN A voice for those under Heathrow flightpaths (http://hacan.org.uk) have a lot of info.

You won't find that exact info though (which may be why google isn't helping) because Heathrow airspace is going to get completely redesigned (with or without R3) so no one knows yet - search for "flight path changes" on the Hacan page for the timetable and consultation process. With or without R3 it'll probably get better for some, worse for some, and quieter overall (continuing the trend), but the complaints will continue because that is what we do in this country - if it was closed tomorrow plenty of people would complain about that.

interestingly, some of the highest suburban house prices are within the “noise envelope” - Kew, Richmond borough and iris clear that a high percentage of noise complaints come from a tiny proportion of the people.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/half-of-heathrow-noise-complaints-made-by-just-10-people/

[bbrown1664]

interestingly, some of the highest suburban house prices are within the “noise envelope” - Kew, Richmond borough and iris clear that a high percentage of noise complaints come from a tiny proportion of the people.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/half-of-heathrow-noise-complaints-made-by-just-10-people/

And many of them probably moved to the area AFTER it was announced Heathrow might expand.

[beamender99]

I have lived within 10 miles of LHR all my life.
We bought our first house in 1965 near Hounslow East tube station, between the two flight paths so am well aware of a/c noise.
I saw an early Concorde on an approach to LHR after diverting due to poor weather at its Bristol base.
It suddenly appeared beneath the clouds on approach and guess what, I saw no reports of it or mention of the noise.
Similarly, the last visitor, as far as I am aware, with a loud bark, was the RAF VIP VC10 which was the last reminder of really noisey a/c.
Again, I am not aware of any complaints.
I agree it is a small number complaining but their house prices are still soaring.

[DaveReidUK]

And many of them probably moved to the area AFTER it was announced Heathrow might expand.

Using your logic, only people who have been living in West London for at least the last 70 years have any grounds for complaint.

January 1946 expansion plans:

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/470x640/9_runway_scheme_7ab33fb2519a423748d609511415bf7f576c627b.jpg

What's your point ?

[Less Hair]

With todays high bypass engines noise is not the factor it used to be during turbojet or Concorde days when the noise debate began. Future approach patterns can be even made more quiet with steeper climbs and descents and curved precision routings.

Facing BREXIT I'd say expanding Heathrow is the only way to go in order to not lose even more business. You can bet otherwise the continent is ready to eat your lunch.

[procede]

Facing BREXIT I'd say expanding Heathrow is the only way to go in order to not lose even more business. You can bet otherwise the continent is ready to eat your lunch.

East London (AMS, which is the main intercontinental hub for the UK population living outside the London area) is now also at a capacity limit, so competition should not be so fierce.

[lpvapproach]

Didn’t Boris say he’d lay in front of the bulldozers? Here’s hoping🤡
I dislike Heathrow as it is so may join him. M25 jammed up takes ages to get there parking is expensive, miles for passengers to walk risk to London built up areas of the unthinkable increased. I am sure it is economically sensible for the building work and employment at the airport dont see how else..Where will all the new passengers go pedestrians are already falling over each other in London!

[Less Hair]

There is more point to point traffic, even narrowbodies have got transatlantic range these days and many continental airports are ready to grow. Amsterdam has the new runway and expands the terminal, Frankfurt is getting ready with T3, Zürich get's more Swiss widebodies just to name a few. Just BER seems to be of no concern for some long time to come.

But some LHR expansion debate over 50 years feels almost "german". You had a third runway that got never used hadn't you?

[steamchicken]

East London (AMS, which is the main intercontinental hub for the UK population living outside the London area)

*Sigh*. People do insist on saying this don't they? Schiphol is NOT closer to Scotland, the North, or Northern Ireland than LHR. Distance counts the same whether it's North-South or East-West: Great Circle Mapper (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LHR-AMS-EDI-LHR,LHR-MAN-AMS-LHR,LHR-BFS-AMS-LHR)

[DaveReidUK]

*Sigh*. People do insist on saying this don't they? Schiphol is NOT closer to Scotland, the North, or Northern Ireland than LHR.

The last poster didn't say that. In fact nowhere in the UK is closer to AMS than to LHR apart from Shetland, which is a tad academic. :O

The point obviously being made was that AMS is connected to more UK airports than LHR is. Nobody expects that to change with Heathrow expansion.