London Heathrow Airport third runway U-turn aheadBack to Forum
AnonymousGuest11 Jun 2012
The lack of slots is due to lack of runway capacity, the addition of a third runway will result in an increase in capacity for more arrivals and departures, great news IMO.
On the down side, not sure how the existing and planned terminal infrastructure will be able to cope with the additional passenger numbers.11 Jun 2012
If they had the cajones they would now be talking about 3rd and 4th runways. By the time a 3rd runway is ever built a 4th would be needed (even just to make it more efficient and build some flex into the airport). There were mutterings of a new T6 to go along with the redeveloped T2 (combined with 1 and possibly 3) – to be called “EAST” I believe.
I suppose the argument is then do they just go for a brand new airport (probably Thames somewhere is what everyone seems to be saying). I’m not so sure about this – probably against at the moment (new airport that is). We need politicians to start making proper long term decisions rather than constantly run away from anything challenging – it is killing the long term future of this country (I’m only 31). I would respect whatever decision they choose (new airport or 3rd and 4th runway – saying No to new runways is plain crazy) – but they need to do something rather than keep putting it off.11 Jun 2012
Another runway would be great even if there was no increase in flights, as it would increase landing capacity and totally eliminate stacking.
If these so called greenies realised the amount of fuel that is burnt by planes circling around London, and the resulting CO2 and other emissions, then they themselves might be campaigning for another runway.11 Jun 2012
Thanks for putting me straight BA319131. The main criticism on this report is about extra noise from increased traffic if it happened but, as you say, it’s difficult to think where extra numbers would fit in to the terminal infrastructure. Just getting rid of stacking would be a big plus ecologically and a line I haven’t heard being pushed much.11 Jun 2012
No problem lloydah.
I’m not so worried about the noise myself, the A380 and 787 are very quiet planes compared to the 747, a good sign engine technology is moving in the right direction.
The reduction in stacking as you point out is not pushed enough, the reduction in emissions by even halving the stacking would be huge and save the airlines money too.11 Jun 2012
Binman – I suppose ‘fast’ is a relative term. Presumably enquries etc lie ahead, plus the financing construction period. What does that mean, 7-8 years?
I was only reading yesterday that the Thameslink 2000 rail upgrade should finally be finished in 2018….11 Jun 2012
This is no u-turn. It isn’t the answer.
The Third runway is a waste of time.
It would cause massive localised disruption in its construction.
Building a third runway will do nothing to increase the opportunity for flights to China.
It could only be used for shorthaul aircraft due to its restricted length.
It would still be closed for six hours every night; effectively investing in a resource which you could only use for 75% of its potential; that’s a crazy use of taxpayer money.
Yet more noise, pollution and risk of crash over central London. (BA38 anyone…?)
Plus the necessity for crossing of the northern runway to reach it, which would actually reduce the existing runway capacity.
And after it was built, what next? There isn’t a single smidgen of land for future expansion. This would the the end for LHR.
Added to that the cost (about a third of what it would cost to build the Thames Hub Airport) and still the third runway would struggle to be ready before 2020, by which time the first test flights could be leaving Thames Hub.
All in all the third runway is a bad, sticking plaster solution.
The Thames Hub is much more strategic, and address the very real and valid concerns of those who want and indeed need to expand runway capacity in the South East:11 Jun 2012
Boris Island is a non-starter according to Lord Adonis:11 Jun 2012
Hmm. That from Lord Adonis, one of the few Transport Secretaries in recent years to have any idea what he is talking about.
Probably the safest bet is that in 10 years time nothing will have changed.11 Jun 2012
And I’m not talking about Boris Island.
Thames Hub is a completely different proposal.
Even Jenny Southan’s otherwise well considered BT article on the new airports could have led to confusion between the two proposals.
Slap in a second runway at Gatwick which will be ready for use the second the Council imposed moratorium ends, and start breaking ground for Thames Hub now.11 Jun 2012
VK, once again I have come to the conclusion that you are deluded, but what can we expect from a man who still thinks that the ‘conservative’ party is still conservative after years of CP/DVD penetration.
Whilst I don’t support the ‘third’ runway proposal at LHR as it currently stands, you are very wrong: –
1. It is not a waste of time – it is needed now even if there were no demand for more flights
2. Any disruption would hardly affect existing operations
3. Building a ‘third’ runway will increase the opportunity for flights to China
4. Even if it can only be used for short haul flights, those flights will no longer be on the other runways, thus freeing up capacity.
5. Regardless of how long it’s open, what is this crazy use of taxpayer money? LHR is privately owned and financed.
6. BA38 was sabotage, and I cannot recall a flight that crashed in London in many decades of air travel.
7. Any reduction in capacity on the northern runway will be less than the capacity of the new one.
8. What next? Nothing needs to be next. There is no end for LHR, it will continue long into the future.
9. Thames Hub will not be viable unless LHR is shut down and you know it. Instead of letting it shine on its own merits, you want to force airlines into it. If the airlines wanted it then they would be saying so. It is just not viable.11 Jun 2012