Extra runways at London airportsBack to Forum
It is curious because the greatest noise coming out against the third runway at Heathrow is from Richmond and Putney. In fact they would be less affected than the good folk of Acton and Brentford.
With regard to Hortholt, the people greatly affected would be in Harrow, Wembley and Uxbridge.
Any use of that air station is limited to the size of the aircraft and not whether they are military, private or commercial.
Of course, FLYBE is interested in using Northolt simply because its aircraft are smaller jets and turbo props so could use the air station easily. Any other operator would be a similar sort of airline (e.g.Eastern, Aurigny, BMI Regional and Blue Islands) but all minnows in comparison.
Let us put an end to the procrastination and hypocrisy being bandied about, especially the latest excuse, pollution.
I remember reading somewhere that only 2% of the air pollution in London up to 1500 meters(?) is caused by aircraft. The greatest polluting agents are cars and other ground-based combustion engined vehicles.
The two airports LHR and LGW should be given a free hand to develop an additional runway in each case free from government intervention but subject to the due planning process, which would be a different political battle.29 Aug 2016
The issue with using Northolt as a full time commercial airport – according to an ex-NATS friend of mine – lies not with runway length, but the 07/25 runway orientation, which doesn’t align well with 09/27 LHR operations.
But I am in total agreement with you regarding the choice of an additional runway (or runways) at LHR, LGW, or indeed both. The government should just get out of the way, and let private – and only private – finance decide where to invest their money.
BTW, the NATS planning documents seem to anticipate 2 additional runways at LHR.29 Aug 2016
As long as voters are living near airports and runways the decision will be a political one. Once a decision is made the choice for private or public funding is wya less important.
The real question that remains is how long the economy can be held hostage by a small group of NIMBY voters.
And for Northolt? Using Northolt will not solve the issue for LHR, but just create another set of problems as Philip described.30 Aug 2016
I live in in SW London. When I bought my house I was fully aware of the fact that London Heathrow airport was just a few miles away and that a constant stream of flights overflew my house. Over the past 15 – 20 years I have not seen or noticed any more or less aircraft overflying my area. However I have noticed how quitter the aircraft actually are. I recall Tridents, BAC-1-11’s, 747-100’s and of course Concorde making a hell of a racket, particularly noticeable on Sunday afternoons when flights took off to the East. So the argument of noise and pollution is frankly a red herring, it really is. Did anyone living in West London not know LHR was there, did they not know that forecasts for years and years have been a growth in air travel? We all know the truth of that one, it makes my blood close to boiling when people complain about something that has been there for so long and brings so much wealth to the area.
South West London has a huge number of people that rely on LHR for their jobs, thus a lot of people will see expansion of LHR as an opportunity for their children and grand children. As EDSKI says, Nimbys by a minority of people that manage to make more noise than those that either support expansion or just don’t care.30 Aug 2016
Sadly you’re right, Mr Michael, the NIMBY’s you talk about have a disproportionate about of influence on the decisions being made.
I’ll guarantee you, that if it was only the good citizens of the Brent Lea housing estate that was impacted; and making a noise, you wouldn’t hear a peep from Zac and his Richmond brigade.
Maybe LHR should apply for a retro day , celebrating all the aircraft that used to fly into the airport. There must be a VC10 or a 707, 727 , or even aIL62 out there somewhere that could be restored to take part : ) ,30 Aug 2016
Great idea Canucklad, I forgot about the old timers you have mentioned. One that I specifically recall was a Pan Am 747,100 freighter that used to leave LHR every Sunday around 4pm in the mid to late eighties. To see that thing belching black smoke, struggling in to the sky making a noise like a thunderstorm used to frighten the life out of me. Not sure why, still to this day I have the perception that Pratt and Whitney engines are the noisiest of beasts.
I recall the introduction of the 737 (I think it was the 400) with the oddly shaped engine cowlings and how quiet they were.30 Aug 2016
Having lived most of my life until a couple of years ago in Windsor I cannot but agree that the noise reduction over recent years has been quite amazing.
I still remember one morning about 20 years ago being out on my bike and almost being knocked off by the vibration of Concorde going overhead, after that when I heard it coming I stopped and got off!
Just before we moved I described an A320 as a noisy beast and Mrs JH looked at me in amazement and said what a short memory I had and she was right – bring on the 707, 737-200, DC-10 and the Soviet types, the house used to shake with some of them.
I also agree, open up the possibility of expansion at both LHR and LGW and let private finance decide where to put the money and keep politics out of it. Had that approach been taken years ago London would have a world class airport instead of the excuse situated there currently.
ABBA.30 Aug 2016
Agree with all though we’re all nimby’s sometime! Northolt has many problems in ATC & planning & LHR, LGW & STN should be allowed to expand at THEIR OWN COST & billed by the government for their costs though LHR can never meet environmental standards unless all pax use public transport – its far short of that & probably never will have sufficient trains. If the airport owners, & then pax, paid real costs to the government none will be expanded!31 Aug 2016
Agree with all though we’re all nimby’s sometime! Northolt has many problems in ATC & planning & LHR, LGW & STN should be allowed to expand at THEIR OWN COST & billed by the government for their costs though LHR can never meet environmental standards unless all pax use public transport – its far short of that & probably never will have sufficient trains. If the airport owners, & then pax, paid real costs to the government none will be expanded!
I thnk the problems at Northolt are a little deeper31 Aug 2016
Haven’t heard much from B.S. Boris for a while. I wonder where he has run off to.
The upcoming decision (?) on the runways for LHR and LGW would be a nice opportunity for him to create some waves again.31 Aug 2016
Ahhh Boris ……
Well Edski, one assumes now that he’s forign secratery, he’s more interested in Schipol , CDG and indeed DXB ?
After all LHR is a domestic policy issue, no need to get involved in vote losing debates : )
He might appear to be a blonde haired daftie , but he’s as asstute as a mongoose in a snakepit1 Sep 2016
“O’Leary wants three new London runways” (Buying Business Travel 31-8-16)
…..which seems at odds with…….
“Ryanair confirms post-Brexit UK capacity cut”, (Travel Weekly 1-9-16)1 Sep 2016