London Heathrow Airport third runway U-turn ahead
Back to Forum- This topic has 603 replies, 52 voices, and was last updated 2 Sep 2014
at 19:28 by MrMichael.
-
- Author
- Posts
- Skip to last reply Create Topic
-
NTarrantParticipantWhilst I would agree with you Anthony, I think the idea that future generations will look badly on current generations is perhaps a bit dramatic. There is an increase in Nimyism and politicials worrying about votes that will delay such projects. And it won’t get better under any party!
18 May 2013
at 07:02
BigDog.ParticipantAnthonyDunn – 17/05/2013 22:58 GMT
I would agree in the most part Anthony, however the nimbyism is fed by our system which protects the rights of the individual over the greater good.
The most obvious example is our apparent inability to exit even undesirable (danger to society) individual aliens. Our judiciary chooses to interpret ECHR rulings in order to protect the rights of the individual over the “rights” or needs of society as a whole. – no other country appears to have this problem.
This individual protectionist trait runs through local government, the legislature and judiciary with reams of red tape, enquiries and appeals to wade through – all highly expensive. LHR T5 took 19 years from conception to completion.
The situation is further exacerbated by opportunist political parties using the infrastructure project as a political football merely for their own near-term ends.
The greater good loses out regardless.
18 May 2013
at 08:00
BigDog.ParticipantThe FT is reporting..
The operator of Heathrow Airport has ruled out moving away from its existing site, as it examines the case for building a third runway as soon as possible, with the option of adding a fourth only much later this century.
Projected Costs for a Thames Hub/Boris Island are estimated at over 50% more than comprehensive Heathrow expansion.
A satellite or relocation in White Waltham (Theresa May’s constituency) has been ruled out.
14 Jun 2013
at 21:39
TerryMcManus24ParticipantMeanwhile News from Heathrow Terminal 6 :
Amsterdam Airport which has six runways has now put together plans in place to construct a new ….seventh runway.
This has made Schiphol a cheap and easy destination to reach for many travelers especially from the old run down London Heathrow as one can easily book and guarantee a flight even at the last minute because there are approximately 100 airlines that regulary operate from this unique airport. ….AGREE….
15 Jun 2013
at 07:58
VintageKrugParticipantTrouble with AMS, just as the proposed additional runways to the west of LHR, is that it takes almost as long to taxi to the Polder runway as it does to fly from London to AMS.
Thames Hub is the way forward:
15 Jun 2013
at 08:01
TerryMcManus24ParticipantV.K.on this one I absolutely totally agree with you……
15 Jun 2013
at 08:07
BigDog.ParticipantSo millions of people driving/taxiing/training around London to get to the most remote and inaccessible part of outer Greater London – the Estuary makes common sense – I think not
A Thames estuary airport – which am sure will not be happening – would be adding 10s of miles to millions of pax journeys along with far longer journey times when compared with LHR. Taxiing of aircraft pales into insignificance from every perspective.15 Jun 2013
at 12:06
transtraxmanParticipantThis has been published on BBC.News today.
“Heathrow expansion ‘cheaper and quicker’ than a new airport”
18 Jun 2013
at 07:35
canuckladParticipantYep…Drip, Drip, Leak, Leak and finally it will be announced that LHR is the preferred choice…..I predict the following spin……
“After an in-depth and thorough review, we have concluded that we need to ensure LHR stays as the recognised premium hub airport, not just in SE England, but also globally! …As a result we will now start a consultation period to decide the best way forward for expansion of the 3rd and 4th runways”
18 Jun 2013
at 07:47
TerryMcManus24ParticipantThe world is producing 90in Ultra High Defination,Internet connected,SMART,Interactive LED TV sets and what are we trying for …
a nice wee 12 inch Black and White jobby in a wooden box with off and on switch (and volume knob ) but no fancy remote control thingy….good heavens.A single channel or just maybe… 2 but if Andy Pandy and the Wooden Tops were OK for us then why should we not stick to that well tried and trusted formule.
Never mind what the rest of the globe is up to….. mummy knows best….sleepy time
18 Jun 2013
at 07:53
VintageKrugParticipantI doubt it.
The programme yesterday was telling; we saw how LHR was a collection of tents within living memory, and was not well linked to London, or indeed more distant parts of the country.
It was only the completion of the Hammersmith flyover in the 1960s and M25 in 1986 that road travel became easier – and it’s still pretty dire.
The M25 is what it is, and the Hammersmith Flyover will need thoroughly rebuilding within a decade, causing massive disruption.
There is no question that improved links will be needed for a Thames Hub, but CrossRail helps and modern solutions will ensure speedy transits across town, leaving the LHR site to blossom with alternative uses.
As mentioned previously, I predict:
1. Interim fiddling with APD to reduce regional flight taxes
2. A new runway at Gatwick, plus new terminal, to be ready for use once the council embargo expires in 2019
3. Improved transit links between Stansted and London, with a formal review timetable for a new runway if demand supports it
4. Further obfuscation on the Third Runway, but eventually deciding that a Thames Hub is inevitable.Better thought through operational resilience for Heathrow would go a considerable way to solving reputational issues; additional stand capacity as T2 comes online will help this to some extent, but more needs to be done to avoid the mass cancellations which are the current response to weather or other delays.
Heathrow is simply in the wrong place, causing too much congestion alongside other traffic heading to London, its position endangers London if there was a crash and lacks space to expand, not just in terms of runways, but also in terms of additional terminal capacity.
All the lobbying we are hearing is from formerlyBAA and airlines intent on holding onto the restrictive practices of the LHR slot-controlled environment.
Someone has to break the deadlock and make a plan not for the the next decade, but for the next 100 years of global aviation. Without a Hub solution, the UK will no longer play a central role in global travel.
18 Jun 2013
at 07:58
BigDog.ParticipantIMO Boris Island/Thames Estuary will never see a hub airport.
LHR (sooner) and LGW (after 2019) + one other will each have an additional runway plus facilities.
New technology and transport enhancements will remove the need for any new airport as I predict :
– High Speed Rail across Europe reducing short haul traffic, opening slots. Direct HS rail feeds to other Hubs eg Schipol.
– Engine technology enable noise levels to continue to fall allowing for a longer window of flight activity around LHR and others.
– Aircraft materials technology significantly reducing weight allowing for shorter runways to become full utilized and the norm.
– As the volume of pax increases the corresponding increase in capacity will be mainly satiated by larger aircraft as opposed to more flights.18 Jun 2013
at 08:24
VintageKrugParticipantWe are not discussing Boris Island, we are talking about Thames Hub.
The above article is a report of the formerlyBAA’s position on LHR. They would, of course, never advocate any other solution.
As ever, seeing the other perspective and understanding the motivations behind an argument are essential in this debate.
Everyone seems to be in agreement that an additional runway in Gatwick is sensible.
Everyone also seems to be in agreement that a four runway hub is required. A few can see the sense in developing a whole new site for the next 100 years, others somewhat shortsightedly cling to the short-termism of enough capacity in their lifetime and to hell with future generations’ needs.
As to the points, they are easily dismissed:
– Aircraft make noise, even when coming into land. Noise will continue to be a factor in West London, and nighttime flights will always remain highly restricted.
– I just don’t see HS rail being viable in the UK for many years, even if HS2 gets the go ahead. The space constraints and noise pollution in the UK is a big issue, and while it works for Europeans, HS Rail just doesn’t stack up in the UK.
– Significant changes have been made in reducing weight with the 787 and A380, but a further sea-change is unlikely in the near future, and as aircraft weight reduces cargo capacity will increase, negating any technological weight saving.
– While larger aircraft will play a part, frequency and departures at the right time of day is key to business use; that’s why BA runs so many NYC services per day.
18 Jun 2013
at 08:35
BigDog.ParticipantWho is We? Stop being so self important.
Do not presume there is only one estuary proposal – how arrogant.
(edit) For the uninformed, the technologies are already being developed , and are likely to have a far shorter lead time than Boris Island/Thames Estuary solution.
http://www.airbus.com/innovation/future-by-airbus/concept-planes/the-airbus-concept-plane/
http://www.boeing.com/Features/2010/06/corp_envision_06_14_10.html
Plus HS rail UK to Germany link being brought forward to 2014
18 Jun 2013
at 08:40
VintageKrugParticipantMore personal attacks – when will it end…?
Yet another decent interchange dragged down by BigDog. deciding to criticise an individual rather than engage in debate on business travel.
18 Jun 2013
at 08:41 -
AuthorPosts