Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Heathrow expansion

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Heathrow expansion

Old 5th Jun 2018, 11:50
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London
Posts: 4
Heathrow expansion

British Government has just announced 3rd runway for Heathrow. A decision at last
jcw8 is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2018, 16:25
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 75
Posts: 1,071
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.
The Ancient Geek is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2018, 16:56
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 276
My 2 pence ? Approve it , build it , get it done. The UK needs this vital infrastructure.
6000PIC is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2018, 17:40
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 865
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!



vctenderness is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2018, 18:05
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 1,210
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
pax britanica is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2018, 18:06
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: EDLB
Posts: 200
Similar in Germany. Infrastructure projects take forever. In China they would just fire up some D9T and clear up the neighbourhood.
EDLB is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2018, 18:09
  #7 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 73
Posts: 3,253
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.
Herod is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2018, 18:35
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 73
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by Council Van View Post
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.
Chronus is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2018, 18:40
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Driffield
Age: 69
Posts: 11
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.
stephenkeane is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2018, 19:41
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: London
Posts: 93
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/com...ts-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
PerPurumTonantes is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2018, 22:23
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 726
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.
llondel is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2018, 22:53
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 507
Didnít Boris say heíd lay in front of the bulldozers? Hereís hoping🤡
woptb is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2018, 23:02
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK. East Mids.
Posts: 441
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.
Tray Surfer is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2018, 23:04
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by woptb View Post
Didnít Boris say heíd 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.
downunderupover is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2018, 23:09
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 507
Pedantry can be a force for good!
woptb is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2018, 23:59
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fife
Posts: 233
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 😕
Coochycool is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2018, 02:00
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: #N/A
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by PerPurumTonantes View Post
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
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.
rationalfunctions is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2018, 04:15
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 120
Originally Posted by rationalfunctions View Post
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.
Willoz269 is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2018, 04:46
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Age: 44
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by Herod View Post
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.
ph-sbe is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2018, 06:17
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,924
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.
ShotOne is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.