UK airport expansion: third runway at Heathrow receives government approval.

The Purley King said:
I quite like the idea of Boris island. I don't know why you think it wouldn't work, but wouldn't it make sense to build in some extra capacity now, so that once its all finished we don't immediately have it full to capacity and have to start wondering where to build another runway? There you can have night-time takeoffs/landings as well.
Click to expand...
It would cost over 100 bn to build the airport, motorways, train links, roads etc.

In the winter no planes will take off because of the constant fog in the morning.

In summer planes will crash after ingesting all the birds that live in the wildlife sanctuary next door.

EDIT. didnt mean this post to sound as arsey as it does.
 
Last edited:
11101 said:
4. Anyone who works in ATC may be able to clarify, but there was something to do with its position screwing up all the European air corridors.
.
Click to expand...

Yep. It would actually be so close to holland that holding aircraft would screw up inbounds to Amsterdam (so I've heard).
 
Adebesi said:
Its also actually in a pretty shit position for everyone else outside London. Unlike Heathrow which is reasonably well placed for other cities to the north and west.
Click to expand...

Correct. This is why Heathrow is popular, Gatwick and Standsted are a nightmare to get too from the Midlands and upwards
 
Its linking two issues that arent at first sight connected. But for me part of the solution (that would never, ever find favour with the political class, and so would never see the light of day) is to take meaningful steps to decentralise the UK economy away from London. And the first step, for me, would be to close Westminster as the seat of government for its necessary refurb and move all the MPs to.... somewhere. I would vote for Manchester but Birmingham or other cities could also be considered. You move the politicians and you draw the think tanks, a lot of the media and other ancillary businesses away from London, creating another economic centre of gravity. For me this is a political no-brainer, but of course politicians would revolt.

In terms of the airport capacity issue, it should relieve some of the pressure in London by shifting some of that demand elsewhere. It would simultaneously solve a load of other congestion-related problems that make London quite an intolerable place to be at times.
 
Mozza said:
Correct. This is why Heathrow is popular, Gatwick and Standsted are a nightmare to get too from the Midlands and upwards
Click to expand...
Eh? Stanstead is miles north of London and harder to get to from the south. Gatwick and Heathrow are pretty much equally easy to get to by train from the north.
 
Adebesi said:
Its linking two issues that arent at first sight connected. But for me part of the solution (that would never, ever find favour with the political class, and so would never see the light of day) is to take meaningful steps to decentralise the UK economy away from London. And the first step, for me, would be to close Westminster as the seat of government for its necessary refurb and move all the MPs to.... somewhere. I would vote for Manchester but Birmingham or other cities could also be considered. You move the politicians and you draw the think tanks, a lot of the media and other ancillary businesses away from London, creating another economic centre of gravity. For me this is a political no-brainer, but of course politicians would revolt.

In terms of the airport capacity issue, it should relieve some of the pressure in London by shifting some of that demand elsewhere. It would simultaneously solve a load of other congestion-related problems that make London quite an intolerable place to be at times.
Click to expand...
Does London still hold the capital city title then?
 
How are people so surprised at how popular Heathrow is?
It is THE #1 airport for logistics, easiest to get to etc. Sure you can try and build links into London from all that from Gatwick/Stanstead - but guessing not everyone wants to travel on trains etc.
 
Jippy said:
Eh? Stanstead is miles north of London and harder to get to from the south. Gatwick and Heathrow are pretty much equally easy to get to by train from the north.
Click to expand...

As the crow flies, road wise its not so easy, Londoners have a Motorways right to Stansteds door, we've got A roads
 
Dracula said:
It would cost over 100 bn to build the airport, motorways, train links, roads etc.

In the winter no planes will take off because of the constant fog in the morning.

In summer planes will crash after ingesting all the birds that live in the wildlife sanctuary next door.

EDIT. didnt mean this post to sound as arsey as it does.
Click to expand...

The birds to worry about are the winter migrants. A skein of geese would be a bit more damaging that a willow warbler.
 
712 said:
The birds to worry about are the winter migrants. A skein of geese would be a bit more damaging that a willow warbler.
Click to expand...
I've had a single wood pigeon destroy a departing a320's engine on take off. All birds are dangerous!
 
Dracula said:
It would cost over 100 bn to build the airport, motorways, train links, roads etc.

In the winter no planes will take off because of the constant fog in the morning.

In summer planes will crash after ingesting all the birds that live in the wildlife sanctuary next door.

EDIT. didnt mean this post to sound as arsey as it does.
Click to expand...

Though it is predicted it would also add over 100bn to the economy through increased activity / productivity as well as the associated construction boom (profits / tax, and wages through the supply chain) - that said Heathrow delivers similar benefits with less of an outlay cost.

As for the birds - well I don't think China, India or Russia would be held back by such planning issues - perhaps if we want to compete we have to take a similar attitude? (but that becomes ethics vs £... and im an unethical cu%t so perhaps my view is not the prevailing one but Id turn the bird sanctuary into a huge car park)

Fog - yup that would be a problem - though with the required hard standing infrastructure and removal of the bird sanctuary that may be engineered out of the equation?

That said it does seem a massively over-engineered solution to a problem and given our record of delivering large infrastructure on time and on budget it does seem by far the most risky option of all. - plus I cant stand Boris so I'm glad it got shelved
 
Seems like this new runway would create a new flight path over Hammersmith. Hope Boris can make them choose Gatwick from a nimby point of view.
 
I know this is a thread about air travel but i wonder if a case could not be made for further Eurostar expansion, a second tunnel even, as an alternative means of reducing demand for short-haul flights here in the south. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, the travelling experience is often a more enjoyable one at any rate. We are like so much cattle at airports half of the time.


Mozza said:
As the crow flies, road wise its not so easy, Londoners have a Motorways right to Stansteds door, we've got A roads
Click to expand...

The A1(M) must offer some connectivity to the airport, and were it to be chosen for expansion in the future a road like the A14 might see further upgrades.
 
The decision has been pushed back yet again; such a delay indicative of political weakness, whether on the part of the leader or the Cabinet. If Cameron can neither convince his colleagues not confront them directly, then he should switch to the Gatwick proposal and at least bring some certainty to proceedings.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
The decision has been pushed back yet again; such a delay indicative of political weakness, whether on the part of the leader or the Cabinet. If Cameron can neither convince his colleagues not confront them directly, then he should switch to the Gatwick proposal and at least bring some certainty to proceedings.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the decision (unofficially) is to let cameron get his eu reforms out of the way, have his referendum then quit as we know that the leadership contest will essentially be between
Osbourne (says the commission that backed heathrow is the way to go on all big infrastructure projects)
Johnson (would just overturn any heathrow decision straight away)
let boris and gideon fight it out
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
The decision has been pushed back yet again; such a delay indicative of political weakness, whether on the part of the leader or the Cabinet. If Cameron can neither convince his colleagues not confront them directly, then he should switch to the Gatwick proposal and at least bring some certainty to proceedings.
Click to expand...
It is a tough decision tbf and one that is understandably splitting both parties, given some MPs' constituencies. Living in Hammersmith, I'd far rather they expand Gatwick.
Some reaction I got about it below. Rics one is interesting.

Heathrow delay must benefit home-owners, says RICS

Jeremy Blackburn, Head of Policy, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS):

“While a fast decision on airport expansion is critical for the financial health of UK plc, a delay may prove just what the doctor ordered for hundreds of local residents. Government must use the coming months wisely to think with both its head and heart.

“Airport expansion will impact home-owners on a scale never before seen in the UK. The number of homes, commercial and industrial properties affected may be similar in scale to the whole length of HS2, but the air traffic and flight paths make this a different proposition. Government must look beyond those residents whose homes will be lost and consider how we support those who will be blighted in other ways.

“Howard Davies and his Commission highlighted the environmental and noise issues that will impact surrounding communities. For example, we know that surrounding house prices are likely to drop in the short term, or air quality could worsen during the development process. Government must work with local communities to develop a far-reaching compulsory purchase and compensation scheme that clearly sets out a criteria which affected residents can claim against.

“There is no doubt that the UK desperately needs greater airport capacity, but planes should never come at the expense of people."

---

CBI COMMENTS ON FURTHER AVIATION CAPACITY DELAY

The CBI responded to the delay on the decision to expand aviation capacity.

Carolyn Fairbairn, CBI Director-General said:

“Delaying this decision on an issue of critical importance to the future prosperity of the UK is deeply disappointing.

“We urgently need to increase our runway capacity to spur trade growth, investment and job creation. Just eight new routes to emerging markets could boost our exports by up to £1 billion a year.

“But by 2025 - the earliest a new runway would be built - London’s airports could already be operating at full capacity and the longer we wait the further we fall behind the likes of Amsterdam and Paris. If we don’t have a new runway up and running by 2030 the cost to the UK will be as much as £5.3 billion a year in lost trade to the BRICs alone.

“It is of course essential that environmental conditions are met. But the Airports Commission spent three years analysing impartial evidence, at a cost of £20 million, and the National Infrastructure Commission was set up just two months ago to take an evidence-based approach to our needs. We cannot fall into the habit of simply commissioning new evidence, instead of the Government taking the tough decisions needed at the end of the process."



10 December 2015
 
He just wants to make sure he still has a friend in City Hall next year.
 
In this environment of economic uncertainty, it seems to me that it would be even more beneficial for government to make its bloody mind up on this. Airport expansion a major infrastructure project and one which transcends Brexit.

It might also be an idea to enhance the capability/capacity of airports elsewhere: one of those in the south-west of Britain, and at least one other in either the Midlands or north-east of England. This would be up to Osborne's successor, however.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
In this environment of economic uncertainty, it seems to me that it would be even more beneficial for government to make its bloody mind up on this. Airport expansion a major infrastructure project and one which transcends Brexit.

It might also be an idea to enhance the capability/capacity of airports elsewhere: one of those in the south-west of Britain, and at least one other in either the Midlands or north-east of England. This would be up to Osborne's successor, however.
Click to expand...
Hinkley point (keep the lights on) - French Investment
HS2 (rebalance the economy and cut carbon emissions) - Was going to need Chinese money (plus all the joint ventures have at least 1 European partner firm as they know how to build High Speed Rail and we really don't)
Yay Brexit - messing up our infrastructure as well as our economy... Unfortunately our Government does not control the purse strings of those we need to actually pay for the stuff we need... As for Heathrow I'd say any airport expansion will need a brexit negotiation as all European flights are subject to being in the EU (ie any company can fly where they want - post EU we have to agree flight numbers with each country)
 
This is the statement.

Good Morning,

Please find below a statement from the City of London Corporation regarding Heathrow expansion.

Thanks,

Commenting on the further delay in the decision on the recommended expansion of Heathrow, recommended almost exactly a year ago by the Davies Commission, City of London Corporation Policy Chairman Mark Boleat said:

“While there is no doubt that there is currently significant political uncertainty in the UK following last week’s decision to leave the EU, if we are to compete on the global stage and build on our trade links with key international markets, needed now more than ever, we need to expand our airport capacity.

“The government should step forward and approve this crucial, nationally important, infrastructure project and invest in future British prosperity. We cannot keep kicking this can down the road.”

-Ends-
 
adexkola said:
There has to be a centralized ATC for London's airspace, no? Looks incredibly complicated for one tower to handle.
Click to expand...
There is one centre that deals primarily with en route and aircraft approaching London airfields. This centre then feeds aircraft to their respective airports and transfer the aircraft to the 'tower' located at that airport.

This centre is located at swanwick near Southampton and is co located with an area centre that deals with all en route (high up) aircraft in the english airspace. There is a similar centre in scotland that deals with en route aircraft north of manchester and into scotland. Actually, all aircraft departing manchester are under control of this scottish centre...at least initially
 
Dracula said:
There is one centre that deals primarily with en route and aircraft approaching London airfields. This centre then feeds aircraft to their respective airports and transfer the aircraft to the 'tower' located at that airport.

This centre is located at swanwick near Southampton and is co located with an area centre that deals with all en route (high up) aircraft in the english airspace. There is a similar centre in scotland that deals with en route aircraft north of manchester and into scotland. Actually, all aircraft departing manchester are under control of this scottish centre...at least initially
Click to expand...

Makes sense. Cheers!
 
The rest of the UK doesn't like Londoners very much
 
Just build the runway!

Residents of West London have no right to expect special protection from increased levels of noise pollution. They are living in a mega city FFS....what do they expect?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.