Heathrow Expansion

[TwigtheWonderkid]

JagLover said:

GT03ROB said:

At least nobody can accuse her of being a NIMBY!

May is starting to impress me now.

She'll be long dead before it ever gets built.

[Oceanic]

aeropilot said:

Explain.

Becuase we always resort to the bandaid solution.

[J4CKO]

How is it other countries decide to do some massive stuff and it just happens, Dubai didnt really exist until about 2012 and it opos out of the desert like something in Command and Conquer, the Chines are like the builders from Fraggle Rock, they build stuff even if it doesnt have anyone to use it, the Yanks say "Shall we add another runway" and the answer is "fk Yeah, more runways, Ye-har, lets have ten, god bless Murica" and its built in a couple or three years.

We now have estimates of twenty years for a third one now the government have decided that is the way to proceed, and they havent even found any Newts yet, its always the fking Newts.

And HS2, meant to start next year, hmm, and then get to Birmingham by 2026, where does the High Speed come into it ?

[aeropilot]

Oceanic said:

aeropilot said:

Explain.

Becuase we always resort to the bandaid solution.

Heathrow isn't a bandaid solution, its the only viable solution to meet the needs of the market.

Boris Island is simply unviable - its pure pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

[kingston12]

bga said:

Being local to Gatwick I was interested to see the poor infrastructure and connectivity cited as reasons that counted against the expansion. If ever there was an opportunity to improve that then this would be it.

It should have been an excellent opportunity, but this type of opportunity is always ignored. Gatwick and Heathrow are both happy to pay for the direct expansion that will massively benefit their bottom lines, but expensive supporting infrastructure? Not so much.

The infrastructure and connectivity for both Gatwick and Heathrow is ridiculous for airports of their size, but there seemed to be no pressure to add supporting infrastructure in either expansion proposal.

Heathrow's ace card is that Crossrail provides much better linkage to central London than the previous connections, but in reality even this is likely to be swamped before this new expansion is built.

[colin_p]

Puggit said:

robinessex said:

Didn't know it existed. Well worth a feasability study I think.

Simply put, the site is tiny compared to LHR. Not worth considering.

To the South of the Greenham Common site it is more or less open farmland, ergo the site could be extended with minimal compulsory purchase orders, demolition of existing housing and infrastructure.

It is the the perfect location, it would be cheaper, quicker and offer less disruption than extending Heathrow.

[Fittster]

Why does the UK need a hub airport?

One third of heathrow passengers simply transfer from one plane to another, nice for the Heathrow shops but doesn't really make much difference to most people in the UK.

Would it really hurt if Heathrow passed up at being a hub and let that traffic go to Schiphol?

[Puggit]

colin_p said:

Puggit said:

robinessex said:

Didn't know it existed. Well worth a feasability study I think.

Simply put, the site is tiny compared to LHR. Not worth considering.

To the South of the Greenham Common site it is more or less open farmland, ergo the site could be extended with minimal compulsory purchase orders, demolition of existing housing and infrastructure.

It is the the perfect location, it would be cheaper, quicker and offer less disruption than extending Heathrow.

Don't forget the industrial park, oh and the hillside! Granted, it's not as steep as the north side, but I would assume terminally steep for an airport...

[Trevatanus]

Fittster said:

Why does the UK need a hub airport?

One third of heathrow passengers simply transfer from one plane to another, nice for the Heathrow shops but doesn't really make much difference to most people in the UK.

Would it really hurt if Heathrow passed up at being a hub and let that traffic go to Schiphol?

Not at all if you want British Airways to move to Spain as they threatened and all the jobs that go with it.

[kingston12]

Fittster said:

Why does the UK need a hub airport?

One third of heathrow passengers simply transfer from one plane to another, nice for the Heathrow shops but doesn't really make much difference to most people in the UK.

Would it really hurt if Heathrow passed up at being a hub and let that traffic go to Schiphol?

It would hurt Heathrow. That is the real reason that they want expansion. The benefit to the UK economy as whole wouldn't be markedly different if the decision had gone to Gatwick.

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

colin_p said:

I've always wondered why they didn't consider un-mothballing the old Greenham Common airbase.

It is only about 30 miles West of Heathrow, already there and could very quickly and comparitively cheaply provide two runways.

I'd look at it as a remote extension to Heathrow with some kind of hyperloop train to and fro from London, maybe an extension to the Heathrow Express and also easier to provide some kind of loop down off the M4/A34 for cars.

Just been onto Google earth to check, it is well worth a look.

Greenham Common is / has;

36 miles from Heathrow
Nothing much to knock down to build a few terminals there.
The existing but crumbling runway length is as long as Heathrow and a second could easily be added.
Only five miles South of the M4.


To me it looks like the common sense location to plonk a couple of runways, nice and central for access, virtually nothing for miles around compared to Heathrow. Should be cheaper and quicker, should.

Sadly common sense was sadly last seen in 1986 boarding a flight, from Heathrow, probably to somewhere in South America.

Didn't know it existed. Well worth a feasability study I think.

Again? And now?

[aeropilot]

kingston12 said:

Heathrow's ace card is that Crossrail provides much better linkage to central London than the previous connections, but in reality even this is likely to be swamped before this new expansion is built.

The issue is more of trying to persuade people to use the rail links. Heathrow Express is very quick but quite expensive, so not even used to its current full capacity. The problem is getting people to use that, and then jump into a taxi at Paddington to get to where ever they are going.....when in reality, they'd rather just jump in the taxi at Heathrow and get taken to their destination.

There is no one size fits all solution, despite many people thinking there is.

In an ideal world, you'd level Watford town centre and suburbs and build a new airport there right bang on the M25/M1/Euston main line, which would take the flight paths north of central London. In fact, several decades ago, they could have taken the decision to use the old HP factory airfield site at Radlett as a prime location, which would have given those road/rail connections, but it would still have meant massive demolition of existing surrounding villages/towns to accommodate the area needed.

The simple fact is there is no available site in the right geographical location to London to replace Heathrow, without removing a lot more communities than what you need to do at Heathrow for a 3rd runway.....so expanding what you already have is the only real and practical solution.

[Fittster]

Trevatanus said:

Fittster said:

Why does the UK need a hub airport?

One third of heathrow passengers simply transfer from one plane to another, nice for the Heathrow shops but doesn't really make much difference to most people in the UK.

Would it really hurt if Heathrow passed up at being a hub and let that traffic go to Schiphol?

Not at all if you want British Airways to move to Spain as they threatened and all the jobs that go with it.

How far should the country bend over backwards for BA?

If we are concerned about threats from a companies, should we do a u-turn on Brexit to keep the banks in the UK?

[anonymous-user]

If the UK needs an additional runway then looking at a map/google earth a runway to the north of Heathrow is a no brainer.

[Murph7355]

FN2TypeR said:

Halb said:

Another by-election!

One I can't see a Tory candidate winning, either.

If the LibDems do as they did in Witney (throw money at it) they could easily win it.

It used to be a LibDem stronghold and even with the yellow party as poor as they were at the last election they still came second.

I'm not convinced Goldsmith is well enough liked to win it as an independent.

So it would be no surprise to see a yellow ticket win it, and then for that supercilious knob jockey Farron to bore the st out of everyone on Brexit once more.

I liked the idea of Boris Island and all the nay sayers should look at HK IMO.

Heathrow is a daft place for an airport, but if we aren't prepared to be adventurous then expanding it was next best. Admittedly in part as one of the contributory reasons I moved from Richmond was airport expansion and increased air traffic volumes have always been on the cards and Stansted would be top close to my new abode

[kingston12]

aeropilot said:

kingston12 said:

Heathrow's ace card is that Crossrail provides much better linkage to central London than the previous connections, but in reality even this is likely to be swamped before this new expansion is built.

The issue is more of trying to persuade people to use the rail links. Heathrow Express is very quick but quite expensive, so not even used to its current full capacity. The problem is getting people to use that, and then jump into a taxi at Paddington to get to where ever they are going.....when in reality, they'd rather just jump in the taxi at Heathrow and get taken to their destination.

I am assuming that Crossrail will be far cheaper than the Heathrow Express, hopefully pushing down the price of the latter until they both reach capacity. It is still difficult to get to Heathrow from everywhere else and this will need to be addressed somehow.

Judging from the map that has been published on the BBC, my area (Kingston) seems positively affected from a noise perspective (more planes overhead but the flight paths further away). That's great (if true), but it still doesn't make it an easy airport for me to use.

From the plane landing to me getting back home it is quicker for me to fly in to LCY or LGW than it is to LHR. There are exceptions to that as it is only a 20 minute taxi if I fly in really late, but if it takes me that long to get back living only a few miles from the airport, what about those who live miles away?

I realise that this is more about creating a hub for connecting passengers than anything else, but transport will have to be addressed at some point.

[aeropilot]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Absolutely agree......the "really" sensible decision would be to give permission to LHR and LGW 'right now' to do what they both want to do.

[Collectingbrass]

Fittster said:

Trevatanus said:

Fittster said:

Why does the UK need a hub airport?

One third of heathrow passengers simply transfer from one plane to another, nice for the Heathrow shops but doesn't really make much difference to most people in the UK.

Would it really hurt if Heathrow passed up at being a hub and let that traffic go to Schiphol?

Not at all if you want British Airways to move to Spain as they threatened and all the jobs that go with it.

How far should the country bend over backwards for BA?

If we are concerned about threats from a companies, should we do a u-turn on Brexit to keep the banks in the UK?

It's those transferring passengers that makes the flights viable. If all that traffic went to other European (or Middle Eastern) hub airports we would loose the range of connectivity we know have supported by those transferring passengers. That makes it much harder to get out to the world & sell our wares & skills; it also makes it far far harder to attract inward investment if you are offering locations near an airport only served infrequently by short haul flights. This is part of the reason why the Thames Valley corridor is so prosperous and East Yorkshire / Lincolnshire are still stholes despite the flight time from to Schipol from Humberside airport.

[Burwood]

J4CKO said:

How is it other countries decide to do some massive stuff and it just happens, Dubai didnt really exist until about 2012 and it opos out of the desert like something in Command and Conquer, the Chines are like the builders from Fraggle Rock, they build stuff even if it doesnt have anyone to use it, the Yanks say "Shall we add another runway" and the answer is "fk Yeah, more runways, Ye-har, lets have ten, god bless Murica" and its built in a couple or three years.

We now have estimates of twenty years for a third one now the government have decided that is the way to proceed, and they havent even found any Newts yet, its always the fking Newts.

And HS2, meant to start next year, hmm, and then get to Birmingham by 2026, where does the High Speed come into it ?

Agree with this. Plus they've factored in a decade of litigation and protest from tree hungers and house sit ins, all funded by the taxpayer. I've often though, how the fm is this country in the G8. We suck at the big stuff

[aeropilot]

Murph7355 said:

I liked the idea of Boris Island and all the nay sayers should look at HK IMO.

The two just aren't comparable.

The Chek Lap Kok as far from downtown HK as Heathrow currently is from central London.
Boris Island would be 3-4 times the distance away, and that's only the beginning of the issues.
Boris Island simply is not practical solution by any measure. It's not about nay saying, its about being fking sensible.

Murph7355 said:

Heathrow is a daft place for an airport

It wasn't 70 years ago.

The daft thing was not ring fencing the availability of a huge amount of the surrounding land for further expansion in the decades to come.
But that's OK in hindsight.