Extra runways at London airports

Back to Forum

Tagged: , ,

This topic contains 544 replies, has 65 voices, and was last updated by  transtraxman 17 Jan 2017
at 11:11
.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 546 total)

  • transtraxman
    Participant

    New difficulties are on the horizon for the Airports Commission.
    Published today Monday on Travel Weekly.
    “Davies Commission faces Stansted legal challenge”.

    http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2013/10/14/45615/davies+commission+faces+stansted+legal+challenge.html


    canucklad
    Participant

    The stench of stagnation on this issue will just keep reeking I’m afraid……

    Good news on the Chinese Visa front = ! step forward
    Not having a credible aviation policy = 3 steps backward


    transtraxman
    Participant

    The chief executive of MAG (the owners of Stansted), Charlie Cornish, wants to develop Stansted like Manchester, adding routes to Asia, with the Middle East and China on his radar.
    Published today(15th) in Travel Weekly.
    “Stansted boss sets out vision for two runways”.

    http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2013/10/15/45635/stansted+boss+sets+out+vision+for+two+runways.html

    Also CAPA publishes today an article about the runways´ issue as faced by the UK Airports Commission.
    “UK Airports Commission: the UK’s runway capacity farce continues as opponents dig in”.

    http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/uk-airports-commission-the-uks-runway-capacity-farce-continues-as-opponents-dig-in-133415


    stevescoots
    Participant

    coming from a family of 3 generations who were in local and county politics for both tory and labor (that made interesting table topics!) I absolutely agree with simonS1. it is a closed shop. at local leven often due to the electorate that in the main vote on party allegiance first, what the papers say as second..the credentials of the candidate a waayyy distant 3rd! but at local level you don’t get on the list unless you grease the local wheels…or decide to try and take on a cast iron safe seat the opposition has than non of the established party members wants to risk losing their deposit on.

    national level is all about climbing the pole, its politics always has been and always will be.

    I often thought about following my fathers (tory) grandfather (labour) G Grandfather (lib) into local politics. however I just don’t have any party loyalty, closest would be the tory party of 30 years ago. that rules me out of being able to do anything constructive for my town as an independent.


    stevescoots
    Participant

    coming from a family of 3 generations who were in local and county politics for both tory and labor (that made interesting table topics!) I absolutely agree with simonS1. it is a closed shop. at local leven often due to the electorate that in the main vote on party allegiance first, what the papers say as second..the credentials of the candidate a waayyy distant 3rd! but at local level you don’t get on the list unless you grease the local wheels…or decide to try and take on a cast iron safe seat the opposition has than non of the established party members wants to risk losing their deposit on.

    national level is all about climbing the pole, its politics always has been and always will be.

    I often thought about following my fathers (tory) grandfather (labour) G Grandfather (lib) into local politics. however I just don’t have any party loyalty, closest would be the tory party of 30 years ago. that rules me out of being able to do anything constructive for my town as an independent.


    AnthonyDunn
    Participant

    I’d intended leaving this because SimonS1 is nothing if not vociferous in complaining about deviation from original threads.

    Having come from a political family in West Sussex, I turned my back on my father’s politics and through hard work got elected as a local councillor in NW London 2006-2010. The comments that “it’s all a closed shop/you are all the same…” blah, blah, blah is the standard self-serving drivel and utter tosh that I have come across on doorstep after doorstep from those who are the first to complain about our political process but the last to do anything about it. Joining a political party was/is no more of a “closed shop” process for me than anyone else. It is a question of choice: are you prepared to put in the time and make the effort or not? For the majority, they are not but they still reserve for themselves the right to bitch, whine and complain despite this. As a personal ethic, I will not complain about others doing something that I am not prepared to do myself. For the majority in the UK, it would appear to be a case of “don’t do as we do, just do as we say” ergo, hypocrisy.

    The other thing that has long struck me with the UK’s entirely consumerist approach to politics (“somebody else does it, we complain about it”) is that most voters spend more time determining where they are going for their next holiday or the colour of their next car than thinking about the complexion of their next government. That is why I also have little truck with most whiners.

    The prevalence of Tory and Labour “safe seats” is another issue again – unless and until the UK Is prepared to accept multi-member PR elected constituencies.

    Returning to the original thread, if people wish to influence the outcome of any public debate around airports and runways, it requires them to get on their backsides and either write a letter or email to HM Government via their local MP. If ministers receive a sufficient volume of mail on a particular issue (they have, personally, to sign letters to constituency MPs), this soon registers with them. Unless and until BT posters do this, they’ve got no right to complain about any particular outcome of the forthcoming London and the South-East airports review.


    canucklad
    Participant

    Hi AD…
    Firstly, I totally agree with you in regards to the Chinese government…..reprehensible behavior that needs to be condemned……

    Now…….ehmmmm….
    “The last time that happened was after the Restoration in 1660 and lead to the Glorious Revolution of 1688 when the Scotty Stuarts were kicked out.”

    &

    “But having just dished that out myself about a pair of shoulder-chipped ScotsNats, I am clearly in no position to point fingers”

    Naughty, naughty boy AD……..You’ve got me searching out my Claymore, brushing off my kilt and glengarry and ready to roar freedom! : )

    And annoyingly you have also made a very interesting point about the choices we make…….

    Eck & Nic are fast becoming Scotland’s answer to Mr. & Mrs. Marmite…….

    And a lot of people are going to decide the future of the UK based on personal emotions rather than weighing up the facts (for & against) ……..and then deciding what is right for the future generation (today’s school kids) and not for 2015…….

    Which easily Segway’s back onto topic…….and then some….
    Is it right that the continued procrastination of what should be a priority decision be tolerated by the business community because the chattering classes need to be appeased?

    I happened upon a program about LGW, they highlighted this retired chap who had recently moved into his rather grandiose thatched house……which happened to be under the flight path……
    This clown now spends all his time recording aircraft noise and complaining to the CAA….did he think the aerodrome nearby was for gliders!

    Why do politicians pander to these people….

    Government is there to make hard decisions for the benefit of all the UKl…and unfortunately this lot aren’t………

    Without getting political, I fear that if the 3rd runway at LHR could be built down Hackney High Street the decision would already be made….and the bulldozers would be rumbling !!

    I am being asked to vote next year on the future of this country, and yet I’m being left with more questions than answers because Westminster isn’t brave enough to grasp the nettle that is UK Aviation policy for a start….

    You also rightlywrote the following…..”Unless and until BT posters do this, they’ve got no right to complain about any particular outcome of the forthcoming London and the South-East airports review.”

    I would question the word forthcoming…..What timescales does fortcoming actually entail…rWe know the facts…..just act on them….


    BigDog.
    Participant

    The FT is running an article indicating the govt has accepted recommendations that ..
    “could lead to significant improvements to Gatwick’s train station and rail links at Stansted and Heathrow…..These improvements, if implemented in full, could cost £2bn and are intended to ensure better use of existing runway capacity.”

    If true, then imo Boris Island (or any derivatives) would be a dead duck.

    Part of the government’s recent “National Infrastructure Plan” said a key objective was to ensure the UK’s air links make it one of the best connected countries in the world…”The Airports Commission had recommended a package of measures for improving surface access to key Airports, it added the government is committed to taking this package forward”…


    BigDog.
    Participant

    The FT is reporting an interesting twist as the backers to an estuary solution are preparing to hoist a white flag Gatwick wades in throwing a cat amongst the pigeons.

    Sir Roy McNulty Gatwick’s chairman has stated it will not build a second runway if there is simultaneous expansion at Heathrow.

    Basically the £9bn required for a 2nd runway at Gatwick was a “bet the company type of investment” and would only get an acceptable return if Heathrow was not allowed to expand.

    The local authorities, chambers and business groups around Gatwick were coming round to supporting a 2nd runway which I thought was a near certain bet.

    I wonder if Sir Roy would be ok with just a short 3rd runway at LHR. Brinksmanship or a game changer?

    (An interim report, having whittled down options down options to a handful, is due 17th Dec,)


    AnthonyDunn
    Participant

    @ BigDog. – 13/12/2013 00:16 GMT

    The original “no additional runway until…” legally binding agreement was with West Sussex County Council. In July 2013, WSCC voted to support in principle the expansion of LGW on economic grounds. What was previously institutional opposition is now institutional support.

    Would that amount to a game-changing scales-tipper when any proposed additional runways, capacity, terminals etc at Heathrow is going to run into any amount of opposition bearing in mind the number of previous BAA statements that “this is our last proposal for expansion….” ?

    I guess that if there is a case to be made for large-scale LHR expansion then there has to be a quid pro quo. In my eyes, this should be that for each and every Londoner (like me) who is subject to disturbance by inbound arrivals overhead at 04:30 onwards and outbound flights up until just before midnight (depending upon wind direction), perhaps there should be a direct levy from each passenger that goes into my (and every other Londoners’) pocket before BA, any other carrier or HAL gets even a sniff of any enhanced earnings. It’s the same principle that those who benefit from public infrastructure spending should expect any capital gains to be taxed. So, those who suffer externalities should expect to be recompensed by those doing the “externalising”. There is no such thing as a free lunch and it’s long overdue that the airlines, airports and airline passengers were made to realise this with respect to residents living under flight paths.

    For those who insist on the additional capacity, then “incentivise” those of us who live beneath the flight paths to agree to it. Payments would relate to noise contours and thus levels of disturbance: the greater the noise disturbance, the greater the payment. Maybe a part of the package should include a resettlement package for those living beneath the lowest parts of the inbound glide path and the outbound departure routes should they decide that “enough is enough”.


    BigDog.
    Participant

    AnthonyDunn – 13/12/2013 00:50 GMT

    Am part of the 90% (guestimate) of people who chose to live near a major airport. It was well established when I moved in over 20 years ago. It was highly convenient for my business needs being a £5 cab ride, less so now. Being an old house my windows rattle – however I have got used to it.

    Noise is certainly an issue, as is a rainbow coloured scum which occasionally appears on my pond. However imo aircraft are certainly getting quieter and if very late/early flights are restricted to quiet aircraft, especially the large ones (A380) I do not see the situation worsening for most.

    Many businesses located to the LHR and Thames valley purely because of access to Heathrow. It is a relatively short schlep for 10s of millions of SE people – an estuary solution would have entailed far longer journeys for the vast majority.

    I had thought an expanded Gatwick with a 3rd runway at Heathrow would be the obvious way forward, however with SIr Roy’s view is this now off the table? Maybe an expanded Stansted and Gatwick will be the odds on now with nothing happening at LHR – which will suit Walsh nicely as it precludes further competition from LHR – and a NY/NJ multi airport solution prevailing over a single hub.


    AnthonyDunn
    Participant

    @ BigDog. – 13/12/2013 01:35 GMT

    I don’t know that I could say that I “chose” to live near a major airport. I did, very definitely, choose to live in London once it became clear that that was where my “career opportunities” (as were…) were taking me. That is probably true of the vast majority of people who routinely live under the LHR flight paths and who, occasionally, avail of the facility out to the west. I did not actively “choose” to live near Heathrow barring a short period of time spent in Hounslow, some 100-150 metres below the Concorde inbound glide path. I moved out again very quickly. Each of us is affected differently: my brother previously lived in Battersea/South Chillsea where aircraft are appreciably higher than further west but the early morning noise drove him to distraction. He now lives in Suffolk!

    Yes, planes are appreciably quieter; an incontrovertible fact. However, this should give a flavour of what any Davies’ Commission recommendations will be up against:

    http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/News/Wrong_kind_of_wind_to_blame_for_aircraft_noise.asp

    I dare say that you will find comparable postings on other west London borough websites. Make no mistake, LBH&F will close plenty of elderly folks care homes to fund a lengthy and expensive campaign of legal trench warfare against any LHR expansion – regardless of whether or not it has the Davies’ Commission’s endorsement. BTW, I live in the Barnet/Brent area so whilst we don’t get the very low level inbound noise or too much maximum thrust outbound, there is no mistaking that we are under the Heathrow flight-path.

    If residents were compensated to the extent that they could afford double glazing, which would also make a modest contribution to lowering their energy bills, then that would be entirely reasonable in my eyes.

    Beyond that, is there not some more mileage in Gatwick’s proposal to tempt (induce, bribe?) one of the non-One World alliances away from Heathrow? People keep repeating the mantra about London being one of the world’s leading O&D centres. If Virgin’s UK feeder services and EZY’s were taken into account, there should be plenty of UK regional feeder traffic as well as other European feeder options. This would be genuine competition.


    BigDog.
    Participant

    Fair point Anthony, the weather conditions certainly have a palpable effect on noise levels. The recent fog created a sound chamber for those of us living close by whereas wind direction has a heavy impact on patterns further East or West.

    Noise is a global issue and the technologies, in jet engine design, aircraft design and fuels, to reduce the impact even further continue to be developed at a pace. So am again of the view that although there will be more flights they will be overall quieter and becoming increasingly quiet. At the same time though people are becoming far less tolerant.

    http://www.rolls-royce.com/sustainability/casestudies/noise_technology.jsp

    http://www.setsquared.co.uk/impact/transport-case-studies/reducing-aircraft-noise/full-case-study

    ….Aircraft today are 20-30dB quieter than first generation of jet aircraft, such as the Boeing 707 and Comet. They now produce less than 1% of the sound of these early airliners , with less than a quarter of the annoyance…..

    With the release of the interim report on Tuesday the chatter is raising, yesterday Gatwick, today Boris is predicting a U turn on LHR and threatening to stand as an MP in order to scupper any plans.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10516962/Boris-Johnson-Airport-review-is-a-front-for-backtracking-on-Heathrow.html

    …The Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, is due to publish its interim report on Tuesday. It is expected to shortlist only Heathrow expansion options.

    Am of the view that the 2 airport solution similar to New York is the way to go for London. JFK (NY) – Manhattan is 20 miles 30-40mins whereas EWR (New Jersey) – Manhattan – 16 miles 20-40 mins which are similar to LHR to City or LGW to City by train. Though just as JFK will for most be preferred so to will LHR remaining the preferred hub with LGW being the main LCC (being the main growth segment) and point to point London airport.


    BigDog.
    Participant

    …Heathrow’s chances of expansion will take a big step forward when it will be identified as the leading contender for new runways…. The Davis commission interim report (released tomorrow) will now study closely plans to build a third and possibly a fourth runway at LHR….

    The FT reports.


    Bullfrog
    Participant

    Logic must prevail here, with an additional runway at Stansted and one at Gatwick. Train travel from London to Stansted needs to be improved. My recommendation is sensible, cost effective, realistic and cheaper & quicker than a commission. So let’s get on & build them !

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 546 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
BTUK October 2018 issue
BTUK October 2018 issue
Be up-to-date
Magazine Subscription
To see our latest subscription offers for Business Traveller editions worldwide, click on the Subscribe & Save link below
Polls