[MrMichael]

Article on the BBC news website today States that consultation has now started on 3 options, a new runway for LHR, a new runway for LGW and an extension of an existing runway at LHR.

I don’t see how option 3 can significantly increase capacity, are they saying that by extending the runway length that aircraft would land at one end and take off at the other at the same time? Is that possible/safe, happen elsewhere?

[transtraxman]

The innovative proposal was for the planes to land at the extreme eastern ends of both the north and south runways, while outbound planes would take off from about halfway down the runways extended westwards for about 3 kms. over the M25 towards the Staines-Windsor rail line.

Since the take offs and landings do not need as much extension of runway as with previous generations of planes, it makes the proposal quite feasible. Maybe for safety precautions this use might be limited when the Superjumbos land/take off in wet or icy weather.

The disadvantage of these proposals, apart from the expense, is that it would mean the end of the Cranford agreement when north and south runway use has been alternated between take offs and landings so as to give the residents under the flight paths some respite from aircraft noise. The new proposals would double the flight numbers and mean continuous use of both runways morning, noon and night.

A third runway would not suffer this problem. It would be used in mixed mode – alternating take offs and landings – while the types of aircraft used would be smaller jets or even propeller driven thus producing much less noise. The effect on the surrounding residences would, therefore, be minimal.

The increase in flight capacity would certainly be 50% but the ground capacity would demand a new terminal with plenty of air bridges for the aircraft.

[transtraxman]

News which is both good and worrying:

It is good because it reflects how the economy is improving.

“Passenger numbers rise at Stansted Airport” (Business Weekly 20-11-14)

http://www.businessweekly.co.uk/travel-and-transport/17818-passenger-numbers-rise-at-stansted-airport

“London City airport posts record traveller number.”s(Buying Business Travel 20-11-14)

http://buyingbusinesstravel.com/news/2023434-london-city-airport-posts-record-traveller-numbers

“Gatwick warns of ‘capacity crunch’ after record results.”(Buying Business Travel 20-11-14)

http://buyingbusinesstravel.com/news/2023436-gatwick-warns-capacity-crunch-it-posts-record-results

“Gatwick issues capacity warning after busiest six months in its history.”(Travel Weekly 20-11-14)

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2014/11/20/51200/gatwick+issues+capacity+warning+after+busiest+six+months+in+its+history.html

And on Heathrow I have only found this……
“Heathrow traffic and business commentary October 2014.”( LHR Airports Ltd. 11-11-14) …. but it tells the same story.

http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/Press-releases/Heathrow-traffic-and-business-commentary-October-2014-a37.aspx

All well and good, but the worrying part is the delay in deciding on runway expansion in the south-east. This information surely illustrates the need to take decisions now and not after the next election. We are a victim of our own success.

We do not want any fudging. Let the government lay down (strict) conditions for runway building, then let both Heathrow and Gatwick get on with the job of building the extra runways at both airports with their own funding.
Not one but two runways are going to be needed by mid century. Cannot we anticipate demand for once?

[Charles-P]

Those working in aviation are convinced of a number of things:

i) Boris Island – no chance

ii) Heathrow third runway – no brainer, will be announced after election

iii) Gatwick second runway – some political issues but also coming, probable announcement after election.

iv) Stanstead – no major changes

v) London City – no runway developments

[AnthonyDunn]

@ Charles-P – 21/11/2014 11:08 GMT

But which LHR third runway option? And that plus a second runway for LGW? Would the business case for the latter work if the former was approved?

With the odds on either a minority government or a three-party coalition in May 2015, this is going to require some political cajones. As we all know, it is one thing for the Davies Commission to make a recommendation/set of recommendations, it is another thing entirely for a government to implement them. And that has always been the problem.

[SimonS1]

The Government of course will conveniently not have been able to formulate their view before the election.

And naturally if a new government is elected then a new enquiry can be set up with new terms of reference. Politics, eh.

[Edski777]

Politicians have an expiry date that coincides with the date of the next elections. It is those people that make important decisions regarding our economy and welfare.
Building new runways at airports that are already congested or building an entirely new airport with sufficient capacity and room for extension is something that requires political guts. And that is exactly what politicians lack.
They claim to be our leaders and have our interests at heart, where in reality they only care about is holding on to their seat in parliament and associated perks.

[Charles-P]

“which LHR third runway option”

The Sipson Village one. Most of the houses in the village have now been bought by BAA so that objection is more or less over. One trip up the tower would show you the building preparation has already begun.

The business case for both Heathrow and Gatwick expansion is recognised. There is enough demand for sure.

[Charles-P]

‘Edski777 ‘ I agree. An unwillingness to take the difficult decisions is holding back development not just in the UK but all across Europe. There was a perfect example of “playing to the crowd” this week when I read that three Tory MP’s are polling their constituents to see what they would do if said MP’s defected to UKIP. In other words,

“I have no principles of my own but I’ll follow what ever bandwagon is passing if it gets your vote”

[TominScotland]

Interesting that the newly elected MP for Rochester and Strood identified opposing Boris Island Airport as a major reason that he was elected!! This, of course, conveniently ignores that his constituents would benefit greatly from the work associated with the construction and operations of a Boris Island Airport.

That said, I agree that this option was always going to be unlikely so it was an easy battle to fight.

[AnthonyDunn]

Charles, SimonS1 & Edski…

If a market changes direction, then it is an incredibly stupid company manager/director/owner who states “No, we are where we are and we will continue doing what we have always done…” In contrast, should a politician decide that they will reflect the changing views of their electorate or changing circumstances, they are roundly castigated.

I maintain my view that we get the politicians we deserve and if you don’t like what you have, the option is ALWAYS there to put your hat in the ring yourself and demonstrate that you can do better. And further, politicians do not come from an alien planet, they come from amongst us. So if we are scathing of the conduct of politicians, then I would suggest that we each of us take a long hard look in the mirror about our own attitudes, conduct and contribution to civic society. Or do we merely lob rocks from the sidelines and criticise others for doing what we are not prepared to do ourselves? That is clearly the role that the UK meedjah has adopted – and a principle reason behind the utterly corrosive cynicism which passes for much commentary these days.

Not for one moment do I envisage that this view will be widely accepted but I believe in being entirely consistent in my treatment of both the public and private sectors and between the political and commercial leaderships of the country.

[SimonS1]

There is a difference between reflecting the “changing views of the electorate” and being motivated by self interest and political expendiency.

I doubt that on the subject of a new London runway the views of the electorate have changed much since the last election, the only thing that has happened is politicians have sat on their hands. Decisions could have been taken some time back, with the country reaping the economic benefits, however the Davies review is just part of the arse covering process. The only person who has shown any urgency at all is Boris Johnson.

[AnthonyDunn]

@ SimonS1 – 21/11/2014 14:17 GMT

So it is your contention that a politician should stand for election on a platform that is then set in stone and cannot be deviated from regardless of any changing circumstances or newly emerging facts? This sounds like a recipe to me for an entirely brittle political system that would be incapable of adjusting to changed circumstances such as the economic train crash of 2008-10. This would lead to both political and thence economic instability – about which you would then complain vigorously.

Beware of what you wish for.

[Charles-P]

‘AnthonyDunn’ you make some good points but I do feel there is a difference between a company director changing tactics compared to a politician simply being prepared to adopt a set of policies simply because they will ensure his or her re-election. Where are the principles, where are the ‘red lines in the sand’ ? I can’t imagine say Dennis Skinner or Norman Tebbit taking such an approach.

I agree we get the politicians we deserve and the lamentable turn out rates in UK elections are a disgrace. Perhaps the Belgian legislation requiring compulsory voting has merit ?

[AnthonyDunn]

@ Charles-P – 21/11/2014 14:23 GMT

You do not need to put my moniker in speech marks, I use my actual name.

The only difference between a company director changing tactics and a politician doing the same is that the former is privately accountable to a few whereas the latter is publicly accountable to many – and can be pilloried in a manner that few company directors are either susceptible to or willing to tolerate. Having worked on Accounting Officer roles in the MOD (“yet another glorious year of achievement in defence procurement…”!) and the private sector, I am only too well aware of a gulf in accountability between the two. A once a year appearance for an hour or two with a few questions from the odd private shareholder is as much as most directors of major plcs are prepared to submit themselves to. Maybe the odd, strictly private, investor briefing under entirely controlled circumstances and away from the prying eyes of the meedjah.

The “compare and contrast” that I would like to propose is in the conduct of much of the directocracy in the financial services industry. Having (between 2008-10) received the biggest ever taxpayer-funded bailout in the UK’s entire economic history, they decided to hunker down and refuse to explain themselves to those who bailed them out. Instead, it was left to the political classes to do this job. The empty chair in the “Newsnight” studio outlasted Paxman awaiting someone from the financial services industry to come along and fill it.

Under the circumstances, it is not on the political classes that I would be employing the epithets “selfish, gutless, dishonest and amoral” in describing their conduct.

Returning to the OP, is Willie Walsh or the Bearded One, O’Blarney or the head of any of the major airlines going to stick their heads above the parapet to campaign openly for increased runway provision around London? My a*** they will; the task will be left to others – principally politicians. Who will then get castigated for doing the job that the beneficiaries amongst the private sector directocracy will decline to do themselves.

We really do have double standards at work here and, from where I sit, it is far from clear to me that it is uniquely the political class that is at fault.

[Author]

Posts