Heathrow Expansion
Discussion
vonuber said:
I'm on the flight path to Heathrow, albeit a few miles away. It's bloody noisy at all times of day.
When did you aquire the property or 'whatever is on the flightpath' ?The yellow dot just NW of Mobberley is where I looked at buying a house just before a 2nd runway was built. Guess why I didn't buy it?
dcb said:
BlackLabel said:
If I were in charge, I'd be developing regional infrastructure in a variety of local airports.
Each could be done piecemeal, in serial or parallel. A billion £ here and there
to develop the provinces.
This would lead to reduced journeys to Heathrow, spread the wealth about,
reduce pressure on the M25.
M25 already worth avoiding most times of the day, adding a runway
at Heathrow will cause significant extra aggro for years.
In you are going to put all your eggs in one basket make sure it's
a good basket. Heathrow isn't it. It's already a hotspot and putting
in another runway will make it hotter
Look up something called path dependency, we've got Heathrow, the costs of changing are likely to be horrendous.Each could be done piecemeal, in serial or parallel. A billion £ here and there
to develop the provinces.
This would lead to reduced journeys to Heathrow, spread the wealth about,
reduce pressure on the M25.
M25 already worth avoiding most times of the day, adding a runway
at Heathrow will cause significant extra aggro for years.
In you are going to put all your eggs in one basket make sure it's
a good basket. Heathrow isn't it. It's already a hotspot and putting
in another runway will make it hotter
Currently London has the most runways of any world city on its 6 airports. The problem is where these airports are and how you can get to them.
The second issue is the value of agglomeration, a hub airport allows you to bring enough people together including transfer passengers to allow you to run flights that would otherwise not be possible.
That is why there is a LHR flight to Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport but not one to Manchester (though apparently there will be soon...) There greater connectivity means that your country gets the maximum advantage of that connectivity.
If you decide you want that hub airport the question is where is it going to go?
Stansted is not even at capacity and has very little additional catchment area, Gatwick is as hemmed in as Heathrow, where would the 3rd and 4th runway go, it is also the wrong side of London for most of the country.
Boris Island is very expensive, environmentally destructive and the wrong side of London to the extreme.
This leaves Heathrow or Luton, Luton is a decent option it is easy to get to from London and transport likes to other population centres are easy to expand. There is plenty of space to create a 4 runway airport.
Hower Luton would be more expensive than Heathrow and would require lots of political capital, not new hub airport will be built except for where there is a local demand and vision for it.
Heathrow expansion is therefore a pretty safe economic bet, it also does not preclude improving the transport links to other airports which are normally the barrier to growth.
E-VTOL and electric flying may change a great deal of those assumptions in the next 10 years. You could for example have 1 or 2 super hubs almost in the middle of nowhere and just use the E-VTOL and electric regional aircraft to move all the demand there for long haul there.
Burwood said:
When I was on holiday very recently, our hotel was near the flight path of an airport. I noticed just how much quieter the new jets are. I'm afraid that if they don't like the noise, they should leave. Everyone knew it was going to be a FO airport from as early as 1945. This tells me these idiots moved there when it was noisy. Regardless, the economy for the many not the few prevails 
Also any properties compulsory purchased will have a 25% premium to market value. Probably the residents affected will take up residence besides a race track and then complain about the noise. I start this post by saying I hate flying (commercial airlines and airports anyway), hate using Heathrow (Gatwork worse still) and resent the fact this major chunk of transport infrastructure is stuck way down south, if, when I have to use it.
However, Heathrow is a major hub. It has to be big. It brings major benefits in terms of our tourists and our businesses being able to travel directly and, on the flip side brings in business and tourism from overseas.
The world's bigger in terms of air travel, planes are getting larger, countries that, a few decades back, were seldom traveled, to or from - like Russian and China - have now opened up, and the critical mass for a major, global hub has ratcheted up. Extending Heathrow was the only sensible option.
The UK should spend a lot less time on the NIMBYism and hand-wringing with major transport infrastructure projects IMHO.
However, Heathrow is a major hub. It has to be big. It brings major benefits in terms of our tourists and our businesses being able to travel directly and, on the flip side brings in business and tourism from overseas.
The world's bigger in terms of air travel, planes are getting larger, countries that, a few decades back, were seldom traveled, to or from - like Russian and China - have now opened up, and the critical mass for a major, global hub has ratcheted up. Extending Heathrow was the only sensible option.
The UK should spend a lot less time on the NIMBYism and hand-wringing with major transport infrastructure projects IMHO.
Thankyou4calling said:
Parliament have voted and a new runway is approved at Heathrow.
25.6.2018.
My gut feel is that we won’t be seeing a new runway for at least 10 years, maybe 20.
By which time other countries will have cracked on and left the UK behind.
10 years, absolute minimum.
I'd agree.25.6.2018.
My gut feel is that we won’t be seeing a new runway for at least 10 years, maybe 20.
By which time other countries will have cracked on and left the UK behind.
10 years, absolute minimum.
When I saw the news this morning, my immediate thought was that we wouldn't be seeing a new runway before 2040.
I do find the whole thing fascinating from an engineering perspective though.
Thankyou4calling said:
By which time other countries will have cracked on and left the UK behind.
Hence my point about infrastructure in general.Demand and progress take no prisoners. You cannot go back and re-do these lost opportunities. The exact same now exists with the UK's road network.
dcb said:
There is more to it than that. West London is already pretty affluent and the
M25 from M40 to M3 is already one of Europe's most congested roads.Making a
already very bad situation worse doesn't sound like progress to me.
If I were in charge, I'd be developing regional infrastructure in a variety of local airports.
Each could be done piecemeal, in serial or parallel. A billion £ here and there
to develop the provinces.
This would lead to reduced journeys to Heathrow, spread the wealth about,
reduce pressure on the M25.
M25 already worth avoiding most times of the day, adding a runway
at Heathrow will cause significant extra aggro for years.
In you are going to put all your eggs in one basket make sure it's
a good basket. Heathrow isn't it. It's already a hotspot and putting
in another runway will make it hotter.
Getting to LHR is just as big a problem as managing to get a take off slot. From London it’s well served - you’d be mad to drive out of London to get to LHR when the trains exist, despite the price. M25 from M40 to M3 is already one of Europe's most congested roads.Making a
already very bad situation worse doesn't sound like progress to me.
If I were in charge, I'd be developing regional infrastructure in a variety of local airports.
Each could be done piecemeal, in serial or parallel. A billion £ here and there
to develop the provinces.
This would lead to reduced journeys to Heathrow, spread the wealth about,
reduce pressure on the M25.
M25 already worth avoiding most times of the day, adding a runway
at Heathrow will cause significant extra aggro for years.
In you are going to put all your eggs in one basket make sure it's
a good basket. Heathrow isn't it. It's already a hotspot and putting
in another runway will make it hotter.
From the West, you’re stuffed. Bus service from Reading station with a tonne of luggage - no thanks. But ... Crossrail - no, you’ve still got to change at Hayes. If you’re coming from the west, you drive.
From North and South, you drive, no option.
Without huge improvements in the transport links, the surrounding area is just going to descend into gridlock for several hours a day. You’re just moving the queues from the sky over Heathrow to the roads around LHR.
Having sat circling Heathrow for far too many hours of my life, they certainly need to do something. This is the point where the enviro bobbins meets reality - flying uses loads of fuel, but is economically. We have a load of governments that are too weak to have that discussion properly, as in “your standard of living depends on development, and we’re choosing development”.
Burwood said:
When I was on holiday very recently, our hotel was near the flight path of an airport. I noticed just how much quieter the new jets are.
This part can't be underestimated. I'd expect it will be 20 years before we see this new runway, by which time even the most backward of airlines are likely to have retired most of their old fashioned stock.Heathrow promised to reduce the overall level of noise as part of this application, I've not looked at the detail behind that claim, but presumably quieter planes are the only way to achieve it.
Burwood said:
I'm afraid that if they don't like the noise, they should leave. Everyone knew it was going to be a FO airport from as early as 1945. This tells me these idiots moved there when it was noisy. Regardless, the economy for the many not the few prevails
I think it will vary for different people/areas. I have lived in the same area about eight miles from Heathrow for years, and the level of annoying aircraft noise has increased exponentially in the past couple. This is more to do with changing flight paths than anything else - a few really low planes each hour is much worse than loads of them a bit higher up.I can't really say it wasn't expected, so I wouldn't complain even if I saw the value in doing so.
Digga said:
Without huge improvements in transport, the whole country will grind to a halt. Talk to anyone in logistics about what 4 years of 50mph limits on the M6 between Stoke and Manchester have done to supply chains.
To listen to some people on here and various government departments the slower you drive the quicker you get there. rxe said:
Getting to LHR is just as big a problem as managing to get a take off slot. From London it’s well served - you’d be mad to drive out of London to get to LHR when the trains exist, despite the price.
From the West, you’re stuffed. Bus service from Reading station with a tonne of luggage - no thanks. But ... Crossrail - no, you’ve still got to change at Hayes. If you’re coming from the west, you drive.
From North and South, you drive, no option.
Without huge improvements in the transport links, the surrounding area is just going to descend into gridlock for several hours a day. You’re just moving the queues from the sky over Heathrow to the roads around LHR.
It does seem to have been forgotten about. Crossrail will help bring people in from the west, but no other significant improvements have been included.From the West, you’re stuffed. Bus service from Reading station with a tonne of luggage - no thanks. But ... Crossrail - no, you’ve still got to change at Hayes. If you’re coming from the west, you drive.
From North and South, you drive, no option.
Without huge improvements in the transport links, the surrounding area is just going to descend into gridlock for several hours a day. You’re just moving the queues from the sky over Heathrow to the roads around LHR.
From my own perspective, the main concern is that Heathrow will dominate routes even more than currently, and destinations will be more limited from other airports. Heathrow is my 'local' airport, but because it is so difficult to get to and from the airport and it takes so long to get through it, I'll always choose City or Gatwick if my destination is available.
If less destinations are available from those airports, and it takes me longer to get to/from/through Heathrow, it won't be ideal. I expect a lot of people will be in the same position, but it will benefit those using the UK as a hub.
rxe said:
Having sat circling Heathrow for far too many hours of my life, they certainly need to do something. This is the point where the enviro bobbins meets reality - flying uses loads of fuel, but is economically. We have a load of governments that are too weak to have that discussion properly, as in “your standard of living depends on development, and we’re choosing development”.
It's difficult to act unilaterally. Of course we should be flying less, but it is difficult for the British government to say that knowing that the Dutch and Germans will then expand their own offerings to take up the slack.. Willy Nilly said:
Digga said:
Without huge improvements in transport, the whole country will grind to a halt. Talk to anyone in logistics about what 4 years of 50mph limits on the M6 between Stoke and Manchester have done to supply chains.
To listen to some people on here and various government departments the slower you drive the quicker you get there. Supermarket shelves will be empty, the carefully choreographed 'just in time' schedules of our big businesses will be in tatters, and there will be no easy, immediate solution. You only have to talk to people in freight, for see how the recent KFC logistics
Politicians drifting around in the Westminster bubble don't seem to get it though.
I just don't get the decision at all.
The whole area around Heathrow is already gridlocked most of the day. The M25 between M40/M3 is already 6 lanes in places and it still can't cope.
Saw a big bill board saying the expansion will create 110,000 new jobs. No doubt most of these will be low wage. Where are they all going to live, where are their kids going to go to school, hospital spaces etc etc.
By the time the 3rd runway is up and running we'll be needing a forth. There's just no space left in that area to build the supporting infrastructure.
The lives of everyone in a 30 mile radius will degrade all so an overseas company can make more money. Heathrow is no longer a suitable place for a major modern air port. Why we don't just start from scratch and build something future proof out in the Thames Estuary. Boris Island.
The whole area around Heathrow is already gridlocked most of the day. The M25 between M40/M3 is already 6 lanes in places and it still can't cope.
Saw a big bill board saying the expansion will create 110,000 new jobs. No doubt most of these will be low wage. Where are they all going to live, where are their kids going to go to school, hospital spaces etc etc.
By the time the 3rd runway is up and running we'll be needing a forth. There's just no space left in that area to build the supporting infrastructure.
The lives of everyone in a 30 mile radius will degrade all so an overseas company can make more money. Heathrow is no longer a suitable place for a major modern air port. Why we don't just start from scratch and build something future proof out in the Thames Estuary. Boris Island.
Harry H said:
The whole area around Heathrow is already gridlocked most of the day.
People flying into (and, as is often the case, straight back out of) a global air hub don't care. They just want to utilise a hub with the right connections. If you want to be a hub, you have to be big.If we don't do it, somewhere else in Europe will. That French air traffic is as unreliable as the (hideous) Charles De Gaulle is unwelcoming does not mean other hubs might not steal traffic and trade in the future.
DurianIceCream said:
I'm a West London IMBY 
I think the LHR third runway is great Shoukd have happened years ago. They should give LGW a second runway too.
Boris is a t
t btw.
LGW already has a 2nd runway, 08R/26L and 08L/26R. The issue (from memory) is that they cant use both at once because the north runway does not have an ILS and they use the same flight path so wake turbulence is an issue. I think the LHR third runway is great
Shoukd have happened years ago. They should give LGW a second runway too. Boris is a t
t btw. Wake turbulence is one of the major reasons the new LHR runway needs to be so far away from the current runways.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff