[peter19]

https://your.heathrow.com/takingbritainfurther/itstimeforheathrow/?CMP=CRM411192508

I just received an email with a link to a fancy video explaining Heathrows expansion of T6 etc.

[canucklad]

Cheers for the link Peter……

It all looks great and I wish it was reality right now, as it should have been , but for the lily livered politicians that have ruled the roost now and in the past, and even more disgracefully in the future.

In the week that the great Gene wilder died, I’m afraid that it’s as likely as me going home tonight to find the piostman leaving a golden ticket in my mail !

[transtraxman]

“Airbus 319 passenger jet had Gatwick near miss”, (BBC.com 1-9-16)

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-37253624

The principal reason given is……..
….” reducing the usual separation time between departing aircraft from two minutes to 45 seconds to increase frequency”…..
That is a major indication of how full Gatwick really is. So yet more evidence to show that runways are needed now at both Heathrow and Gatwick. In fact in the time it will take to open the runways the situation will be worse. Are we going to have a major accident before the politicians wake up?

[Flightlevel]

Really agree & its time for political leadership & decisions made to offer Skyteam their own new terminal with a 2nd runway at LGW & later offer the same to Star alliance at STN & a new runway there. Alliances are already making similar moves overseas. The government is happy to develop railway capacity very expensively to taxpayers, and the airport owners offer to use their own money for those developments when they get permission!

[transtraxman]

“Heathrow could apply to lift flight limit allowing 50 more planes to use the airport every day”, (Evening Standard 10-9-16)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/heathrow-could-apply-to-lift-flight-limit-allowing-50-more-planes-to-use-the-airport-every-day-a3341676.html

This sounds like a good stop gap measure to introduce before the new runway gets built. This would mean increasing the annual aicraft movements from the present 475,000 to the maximum permitteed of 480,000. However, it will never be so simple. The slack is likely to be composed of uninteresting time slots because it that were not the case then they would have been snapped up already. Anyway, to bring the total up to 50 flights per day the present cap would have to be lifted.

The alternative is to introduce mix-mode, whereby both runways are used for take offs and landings just as Gatwick does. This would mean each runway at Heathrow could reach the figures of Gatwick for annual movements which meant that this last year Gatwick has moved 41.7million passengers. For Heathrow that would give it a margin of 10 milliom passengers more to achieve.

http://mediacentre.gatwickairport.com/press-releases/2016/16-08-11-londons-fastest-growing-long-haul-gateway-gatwick-achieves-biggest-ever-month.aspx

Most probably this mix-mode use of the two runways is not on the cards but selective use of mixed -mode might help and convince the people of West London that they would be better off with a third runway.

[MrMichael]

I never really understood why mixed mode as described by Transtraxman could not be used. It would be simple enough for flights going to/from the north use the northern runway and vice versa for the south runway, therefore avoiding conflict. Seems to me it is about 50/50 (correct me if I am way out). Not convinced though that it would necessarily mean LHR could handle double LGW pax, LHR has less operational hours due to the night ban at LHR.

Another solution at LHR, and this will be controversial. Ban or up price landing fees to any aircraft type that is only capable of carrying less than say 180 pax(so A320 & B737-8 being the smallest type and would not apply to cargo only aircraft). Pretty much an A380 takes up the same runway capability as an a319 or E170 making runway usage so much more efficient.

[transtraxman]

Some more development on the question of new runways has come to light.

One CEO, Andrew Swaffield of Monarch airlines, considers “…Brexit may force the debate on new runway capacity in the southeast to a head saying aviation is “a critical lubricant of trade deals” and his personal view was there is a clear need for new runway capacity at both Gatwick and Heathrow.”
So another airline professional sees the need for runways at both LHR and LGW.
“Aviation should prepare for ‘hard Brexit’ says Monarch boss” (Travel Weekly 14-9-16)

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/63113/aviation-should-prepare-for-hard-brexit-says-monarch-boss

But much more importantly the changes in government seem to be going the same way.
Taking its information from a “Times” article, the piece says a leaked document seemed to indicate the major opponents of Heathrow expansion were being sidelined.It states the there is speculation “… prime minister Theresa May is leaning towards approving a third runway at Britain’s biggest airport”.
To defuse any opposition from ministers collective responsibility would be suspended and a free vote given.
Moreover, “…some believe that May could also decide to encourage Gatwick to expand on the grounds that the UK must do all it can to expand its export capacity after Brexit, according to The Times.”
“Boris frozen out of southeast runway decision,” (Travel Weekly 15-9-16)

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/63109/boris-frozen-out-of-southeast-runway-decision

October 18th is seen as the probable date when the decision is announced.
It appears that at last the politicians have grasped the metal.

[JohnHarper]

If there were a free vote and bearing in mind the size of the government majority would it pass? The majority of the affected constituencies are Tory and even if they simply abstain it’s a fair bet that all others will vote against.

It’s time though that there was a change in the way large infrastructure projects were managed in the UK. The French don’t do much right but their infrastructure projects work because of the public interest declaration which stops opposition dead. In the UK they are still debating while the French have the project finished – just look at the railways and the capacity of CDG.

[transtraxman]

Now that a decision on runway expansion for London airports seems imminent, CAPA has come up with an analysis today 7-10-16 which proves interesting reading.ç
“South East England runway decision – UK Prime Minister Theresa May could select a radical solution,”

http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/south-east-england-runway-decision–uk-prime-minister-theresa-may-could-select-a-radical-solution-305367

The economic and political problems are highlighted, including the fact that no Prime Minister in recent times has been in a better position to do what he/she believes in. CAPA proposes and then knocks down its own proposals.It comes to the conclusion that PM. May could well propose both Heathrow and Gatwick are given the go-ahead to built another runway each and let them get on with it.

This double solution is the way forward put forward by this poster/blogger for some years now. Of course there would be problems not least the capacity (or lack of) to finance the operations. However, every problem is there to be solved. This decision is expected towards the second half of this month. Let us hope it is so – at last.

[PhilipHart]

@transtraxman

I too have also previously advocated a laissez-faire approach. Let HMG give the go ahead for expansion at any or all of the London airports, and the finance guys – investing only their own money – will figure out which are the sound investments, and fund the construction costs as appropriate.

[MrMichael]

Whatever decision is made I can see it being embroiled in numerous judicial reviews, tree huggers in droves and of course locals chaining themselves to bulldozers.

[canucklad]

An interesting update, well sort of,from north of the border.

The Scottish government has publicly backed Heathrow for the 3rd runway.
As a result the SNP Westminster MP’s have been party whipped to vote for LHR.

As a consequence, this means Theresa May can allow a free vote, which pretty much insures an Aye for LHR whilst giving the Tory nimbies a way out with their constituents.

[PhilipHart]

@canucklad, one wonders what the quid pro quo might be that Bute House is receiving from Downing Street in return.

[canucklad]

Quite possibly Phillip,
I’d like to think that Nicola has had the nuance to use APD as a leverage, and give us a clear 2 years advantage before Westminster has to take action to allow English airports (at least in the North) able to compete.

But then again, I suspect Nicola’s not a cigar smoking, port swilling wheeler dealer.

And I’m going to pose a question to fellow forum contributors…….
So far, and apart from the green brigade (not the Celtic lot) whom north of the border is not happy with the decision to back LHR ?

[Edski777]

Has anyone worked out how long it would take for a new runway to become operational? If a decision is reached by the end of this year and no legal obstruction takes place when will the first plane land/take off on/from this runway?
What would be the actual increase in operational terms (take offs and landings) or will there only be a shift to relieve the burden on those living under flight paths?

Although I am a strong advocate of a third runway at LHR I am afraid my hopes and believes are somewhat low following the discussions and publications. Was the SNP response merely cynical?

[Author]

Posts