Gutless Goverment?
Thread Starter
Gutless Goverment?
From the BBC news this morning:
Business groups have reacted with anger to the government's delay in reaching a decision on whether to build a third runway at London's Heathrow Airport.
The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) said it was "gutless", while another group said it would have business leaders "tearing their hair out".
They argue that the delay is bad for the UK economy.
But opponents welcomed the government's plan to wait for further environmental research before making a decision.
No decision will be made before the summer of 2016, it was announced on Thursday.
Are they gutless or do they really care about the environment?
Business groups have reacted with anger to the government's delay in reaching a decision on whether to build a third runway at London's Heathrow Airport.
The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) said it was "gutless", while another group said it would have business leaders "tearing their hair out".
They argue that the delay is bad for the UK economy.
But opponents welcomed the government's plan to wait for further environmental research before making a decision.
No decision will be made before the summer of 2016, it was announced on Thursday.
Are they gutless or do they really care about the environment?
Last edited by Ddraig Goch; 11th Dec 2015 at 07:42. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: BRS/GVA
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's just political maneuver. The conservative London mayor candidate is against it
and they don't want to announce that before the election.
One could infer that the decision will be Yes, but they will wait until after the election pans out.
A cynic might point out it helps them out of a political hole. Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith said he would resign and force a by-election if they picked Heathrow. But he'll be tied up with the London mayoral election, which is to be held on 5 May 2016.
One could infer that the decision will be Yes, but they will wait until after the election pans out.
Originally Posted by Ddraig Goch
Are they gutless or do they really care about the environment?
It's got nothing to do with the environment, it's about career politicians thinking of their careers rather than making tough decisions for the good and prosperity of the country they are supposed to be running.....so, they'd rather play the 'kick the can down the road' game instead....
You don't even have to ask the question. Yes, they are totally gutless. All they have to do is make a decision &, after I don't know how many years & enquiries, they are unable to do so.
Pitiful & pathetic !
Pitiful & pathetic !
Neither another runway at Heathrow nor the absurd HS2 rail scheme have much public support - and the government knows that only too well.
A second runway at Gatwick, plus a direct fast rail connection to Heathrow, might be the better solution? But the connection must be a lot cheaper than the ridiculous prices for the 'Heathrow Express' or 'Gatwick Express'....
A second runway at Gatwick, plus a direct fast rail connection to Heathrow, might be the better solution? But the connection must be a lot cheaper than the ridiculous prices for the 'Heathrow Express' or 'Gatwick Express'....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re aircraft noise.
A simple non scientific impressive test on how noise levels have and will continue to be lowered.
Heathrow expansion: Plane spotters take 'blind test' - BBC News
A few days ago one of the many Heathrow departures that fly over my home caused me to look up. It was a BA Dreamliner. it was so quiet compared with others.
Perhaps the population of London and surrounds should view this video clip.
A simple non scientific impressive test on how noise levels have and will continue to be lowered.
Heathrow expansion: Plane spotters take 'blind test' - BBC News
A few days ago one of the many Heathrow departures that fly over my home caused me to look up. It was a BA Dreamliner. it was so quiet compared with others.
Perhaps the population of London and surrounds should view this video clip.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The blasted heath
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you asked most politicians to find Gatwick they'd be stumped. It is after all outside the M25 and may as well be on the moon.
They've probably been talking to the 'experts' as well. The experts who decided any new runway could be shorter because 'aircraft take-off using full power'....
They've probably been talking to the 'experts' as well. The experts who decided any new runway could be shorter because 'aircraft take-off using full power'....
It would be amazing if a decision is ever made; even if it is it will be reversed within a year or two.
I did a lot of work on the Maplin Sands proposal as a relatively junior number-cruncher; it was blindingly obvious that it was the best option, and remained so after balancing the environmental impacts of closing LHR in favour of Maplin Sands. But the Government of the day couldn't make its mind up and so we did nothing.
And have done nothing ever since, except patch new bits on to LHR usually about 10 years after the demand figure passed the figure the new patch was intended to serve. The great Charles Stuart (BA, Brymon) made a compelling case in about 1986/7 for a 3rd (2000m or so) LHR runway to remove regional aircraft from the long existing runways. I'm proud of helping with the technical aspects of that case, in a small way. The proposal came up against a brick wall of resistance to change, which still exists today. (London City came about as a result of his getting nowhere with the 3rd LHR runway proposal.)
Fast forward to 2003, and the £100m study into London airport capacity that was grandiosely and misleadingly entitled "The Future of Aviation". That kept an army of consultants, including me, rolling in s**t, sorry, gainfully employed for about 4-5 years leading up to its publication. Every aspect of the problem was exhaustively looked at, calaculated, weighed up etc etc. Every conceivable option was examined and kicked into touch. The end result, assisted by the 26 staff BAA embedded in the DfT, was to build another runway at LGW, STN and LHR, but now necessarily now, and not in that order, and, by the way, not at LHR until a solution was found to the air quality impact. Which it has not been, of course. This solution could have been, and probably was written on a fag packet as the inevitable outcome before any work was done. BAA ruled, and this was what they wanted.
(One of the best, quickest and cheapest solutions, a 2000m runway at Redhill, 100% privately funded, parallel with LGW with 8 minute overland transit to LGW North Terminal was kicked into touch smartly by BAA, aided and abetted by a complaisant NATS. It could have been open and operating by 2008/9. The way it was dealt with showed just how corruptly the UK Government really works).
The "Future of Air Transport" was put in a drawer and forgotten by the Labour Government the day after it was published. Nothing new has been added to the body of information about London airport capacity, except that as time goes on relocating the principal hub airport of the UK, as should have happened in the 1970's, becomes increasingly difficult.
So here's a prediction. Politicians will continue to bicker about it until the present system of air travel, ie charging down miles of concrete with larger and larger thrust supported contraptions running on fossil fuel and polluting the atmosphere, is replaced by something new and totally different, say in 50 - 100 years time.
The UK has not completely lost the ability to firstly decide on, and then execute a major infrastructure project. But it can only do that with interminable delays, changes of mind, political interference and so on; Crossrail illustrates all of that while being a fantastic engineering achievement. For the foreseeable future, the bickering about London Airport capacity will continue with facts, half-truths and lies from all sides, and LHR will grow at a slower and slower rate with small incremental capacity increases, about 10 years after they are needed.
I did a lot of work on the Maplin Sands proposal as a relatively junior number-cruncher; it was blindingly obvious that it was the best option, and remained so after balancing the environmental impacts of closing LHR in favour of Maplin Sands. But the Government of the day couldn't make its mind up and so we did nothing.
And have done nothing ever since, except patch new bits on to LHR usually about 10 years after the demand figure passed the figure the new patch was intended to serve. The great Charles Stuart (BA, Brymon) made a compelling case in about 1986/7 for a 3rd (2000m or so) LHR runway to remove regional aircraft from the long existing runways. I'm proud of helping with the technical aspects of that case, in a small way. The proposal came up against a brick wall of resistance to change, which still exists today. (London City came about as a result of his getting nowhere with the 3rd LHR runway proposal.)
Fast forward to 2003, and the £100m study into London airport capacity that was grandiosely and misleadingly entitled "The Future of Aviation". That kept an army of consultants, including me, rolling in s**t, sorry, gainfully employed for about 4-5 years leading up to its publication. Every aspect of the problem was exhaustively looked at, calaculated, weighed up etc etc. Every conceivable option was examined and kicked into touch. The end result, assisted by the 26 staff BAA embedded in the DfT, was to build another runway at LGW, STN and LHR, but now necessarily now, and not in that order, and, by the way, not at LHR until a solution was found to the air quality impact. Which it has not been, of course. This solution could have been, and probably was written on a fag packet as the inevitable outcome before any work was done. BAA ruled, and this was what they wanted.
(One of the best, quickest and cheapest solutions, a 2000m runway at Redhill, 100% privately funded, parallel with LGW with 8 minute overland transit to LGW North Terminal was kicked into touch smartly by BAA, aided and abetted by a complaisant NATS. It could have been open and operating by 2008/9. The way it was dealt with showed just how corruptly the UK Government really works).
The "Future of Air Transport" was put in a drawer and forgotten by the Labour Government the day after it was published. Nothing new has been added to the body of information about London airport capacity, except that as time goes on relocating the principal hub airport of the UK, as should have happened in the 1970's, becomes increasingly difficult.
So here's a prediction. Politicians will continue to bicker about it until the present system of air travel, ie charging down miles of concrete with larger and larger thrust supported contraptions running on fossil fuel and polluting the atmosphere, is replaced by something new and totally different, say in 50 - 100 years time.
The UK has not completely lost the ability to firstly decide on, and then execute a major infrastructure project. But it can only do that with interminable delays, changes of mind, political interference and so on; Crossrail illustrates all of that while being a fantastic engineering achievement. For the foreseeable future, the bickering about London Airport capacity will continue with facts, half-truths and lies from all sides, and LHR will grow at a slower and slower rate with small incremental capacity increases, about 10 years after they are needed.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cheshire, England
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget about a third runway at Heathrow; it's not going to happen within the next ten years and, even if it happens, it won't be a popular move.
Forget about a second runway at Gatwick. It's not going to happen within the next ten years and, even if it happens, won't be a popular move.
Don't even bother looking at Stansted.
Forget about HS2; it's not going to........etc, etc.
Why can't the UK take a leaf out of the Germans' book. They have two major international hubs. One in the south, Munich, and one up north, Frankfurt.
All this focus on Heathrow and Gatwick overlooks the fact that there is a well established two runway international airport "up north" in the UK. Why not use up some of the runway capacity at Manchester. You never know, it might obviate the need for more runways in the south east and blow HS2 off the rails.
Hat, coat and waiting for incoming.
Forget about a second runway at Gatwick. It's not going to happen within the next ten years and, even if it happens, won't be a popular move.
Don't even bother looking at Stansted.
Forget about HS2; it's not going to........etc, etc.
Why can't the UK take a leaf out of the Germans' book. They have two major international hubs. One in the south, Munich, and one up north, Frankfurt.
All this focus on Heathrow and Gatwick overlooks the fact that there is a well established two runway international airport "up north" in the UK. Why not use up some of the runway capacity at Manchester. You never know, it might obviate the need for more runways in the south east and blow HS2 off the rails.
Hat, coat and waiting for incoming.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unlike Germany, the majority of the UK population is in the south of the country making the requirement for additional capacity one for the south rather than the north.
Gatwick and Heathrow are at capacity now. Stansted may be an option for additional capacity but the reality is it should be Heathrow or Gatwick.
Heathrow already has major transport issues getting there. The roads are at capacity and the air quality is already well below where it should be. In addition, Heathrow want the taxpayer to fund the work required.
Gatwick has less of a capacity issue on the transport issue for getting there. Air quality is OK and they will pay for the work themselves.
Gatwick should get the runway and get it now as well as airlines being incentivised to use the regional locations such as Birmingham and Manchester for long haul operations.
Gatwick and Heathrow are at capacity now. Stansted may be an option for additional capacity but the reality is it should be Heathrow or Gatwick.
Heathrow already has major transport issues getting there. The roads are at capacity and the air quality is already well below where it should be. In addition, Heathrow want the taxpayer to fund the work required.
Gatwick has less of a capacity issue on the transport issue for getting there. Air quality is OK and they will pay for the work themselves.
Gatwick should get the runway and get it now as well as airlines being incentivised to use the regional locations such as Birmingham and Manchester for long haul operations.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble is, Gatwick is already a disaster to get to for 95% of the population and that's only going to get worse as traffic increases.
Agreed with earlier comments; gutless shameful non-decision which is costing the industry and country dearly.
Agreed with earlier comments; gutless shameful non-decision which is costing the industry and country dearly.
Meanwhile a 10,000' runway has stood unused in the south east while gutless local politicians spent two years shuffling the paperwork.
It's called Manston. It has a dual carriageway from London and with an extension, rail links all over the south east. A new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick will take 10 years. Manston is there now and will be far cheaper.
mmitch.
It's called Manston. It has a dual carriageway from London and with an extension, rail links all over the south east. A new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick will take 10 years. Manston is there now and will be far cheaper.
mmitch.
The reason MAN has unused runway capacity is because all the airlines that believe they can make money on routes from there are already doing so.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least 10% unused capacity at Heathrow.......simulations prove it. Too many local restrictions on airport operation limit potential. It suits some operators to have a cap on movements......more slots reduce slot value [and increase competition].
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble is, Gatwick is already a disaster to get to for 95% of the population
as well as airlines being incentivised to use the regional locations such as Birmingham and Manchester for long haul operations.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All airports need to have surplus capacity if the operation is to be robust, because poor w/x or strong winds lead to flow restraints as there is need for greater separation. LGW tends not to have them as they alternate T/O & LDG and thus the separation is built in. A second R/W there would not double its capacity, just as a third R/W at LHR if it were ever built would not increase the capacity by 30%.
A country needs multiple communication links, the expansion of LGW would increase the UKs robustness and I believe the Freight capacity since it is closer to Europe and freight could flow back through the Channel tunnel as well into the heart of England
A country needs multiple communication links, the expansion of LGW would increase the UKs robustness and I believe the Freight capacity since it is closer to Europe and freight could flow back through the Channel tunnel as well into the heart of England
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason MAN has unused runway capacity is because all the airlines that believe they can make money on routes from there are already doing so.
Manchester seems to have a growing number of airlines offering long-haul services both east and west, with rapidly increasing premium cabin capacity to a range of destinations. Other airports outside the south-east are seeing similar growth, though perhaps not on the scale of Manchester.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cheshire, England
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bbrown1664
I note your thoughts on population spread between south and north in UK making the case for another runway at Heathrow or Gatwick, although your comments about ground transport and air quality would suggest that neither is a viable option. Another factor to bear in mind is the degree of resistance to any development, especially at Gatwick which is located within a fairly wealthy semi-rural area. It is already being recognised that either development is a political hot potato and that's before the tortuous planning process gets under way. My thoughts are that ten years is a pipe dream.
mmitch
I fear that Manston suffers from the same problems with transport links as Heathrow and Gatwick, only worse. Having been closed for a couple of years the resistance to development may prove considerable, and it doesn't exactly have an infrastructure.
DaveReidUK
I'm not sure that I have answered my own question. Perhaps the issue is that Heathrow has consistently been seen as "the jewel in the UK's aviation crown" with it being the "world's busiest international airport". For that reason it has been able to market itself as the gateway to the UK with airlines falling over themselves to operate from it. I don't think that it is the busiest international airport any longer, and nor is it a jewel. Increasing numbers of international transit passengers are avoiding it and whilst many from Manchester and other UK airports transit to Gatwick (although not by air), Heathrow, Dublin, Schipol, Paris and beyond to make their international connections, the overbearing emphasis on Heathrow has resulted in it being overcrowded and not a pleasant place to go to. The problem is to draw those passengers back to other UK airports. Airlines are there to make money, and if the major player at Heathrow sees that it has a market elsewhere and is losing money to competitors by focussing on London it may be forced to look northwards. Sadly, having minimised its activities at Manchester over the years I don't see their blinkers being removed.
055166k
You may perceive that the 10% unused capacity exists, but I don't see that it is capable of being used and that's before considerations of LVPs, strong winds and the inevitable loss of a runway due to an incident.
Final thoughts
Regardless of the implementation, or not, of another runway in the "more populous" part of the U.K., the issue is that it won't happen any time soon and for as long as demand for air travel increases and airports and airlines outside the UK see opportunities to develop their businesses they will take the money from UK Plc all the way to their banks. All of which knocks the Heathrow vs Gatwick vs anywhere else out of the arena.
I note your thoughts on population spread between south and north in UK making the case for another runway at Heathrow or Gatwick, although your comments about ground transport and air quality would suggest that neither is a viable option. Another factor to bear in mind is the degree of resistance to any development, especially at Gatwick which is located within a fairly wealthy semi-rural area. It is already being recognised that either development is a political hot potato and that's before the tortuous planning process gets under way. My thoughts are that ten years is a pipe dream.
mmitch
I fear that Manston suffers from the same problems with transport links as Heathrow and Gatwick, only worse. Having been closed for a couple of years the resistance to development may prove considerable, and it doesn't exactly have an infrastructure.
DaveReidUK
I'm not sure that I have answered my own question. Perhaps the issue is that Heathrow has consistently been seen as "the jewel in the UK's aviation crown" with it being the "world's busiest international airport". For that reason it has been able to market itself as the gateway to the UK with airlines falling over themselves to operate from it. I don't think that it is the busiest international airport any longer, and nor is it a jewel. Increasing numbers of international transit passengers are avoiding it and whilst many from Manchester and other UK airports transit to Gatwick (although not by air), Heathrow, Dublin, Schipol, Paris and beyond to make their international connections, the overbearing emphasis on Heathrow has resulted in it being overcrowded and not a pleasant place to go to. The problem is to draw those passengers back to other UK airports. Airlines are there to make money, and if the major player at Heathrow sees that it has a market elsewhere and is losing money to competitors by focussing on London it may be forced to look northwards. Sadly, having minimised its activities at Manchester over the years I don't see their blinkers being removed.
055166k
You may perceive that the 10% unused capacity exists, but I don't see that it is capable of being used and that's before considerations of LVPs, strong winds and the inevitable loss of a runway due to an incident.
Final thoughts
Regardless of the implementation, or not, of another runway in the "more populous" part of the U.K., the issue is that it won't happen any time soon and for as long as demand for air travel increases and airports and airlines outside the UK see opportunities to develop their businesses they will take the money from UK Plc all the way to their banks. All of which knocks the Heathrow vs Gatwick vs anywhere else out of the arena.