Heathrow Expansion

[scenario8]

aeropilot said:

...In an ideal world, you'd level Watford town centre and suburbs...

Gets my vote.

So expansion has been spoken about for decades. It's now 2016. Realistically when do we anticipate scheduled flights on this runway? 2022? 2026? Never?

[Trevatanus]

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?

How is it a threat?
If you do not have your hub in a particular country, which they would be forced to consider if the capacity was not there, then they move the hub (and staff) to where there IS capacity.

[MiniMan64]

I get the anger of locals complaining about more flight although you DID move in next to the worlds biggest airport, what did you expect?

But the green concerns, is it really just straight up that they don't want any of us to fly anymore?

Seems reasonable.....

[kingston12]

MiniMan64 said:

I get the anger of locals complaining about more flight although you DID move in next to the worlds biggest airport, what did you expect?

But the green concerns, is it really just straight up that they don't want any of us to fly anymore?

Seems reasonable.....

The problem with the noise arguments is that they should have been used to limit what Heathrow is able to do with the new runway once it is (inevitably) approved rather than fighting the approval itself.

For example, the number of freight flights (which shouldn't really be operating out of Heathrow anyway) could be reduced, airlines who want to use the airport 'encouraged' to use quieter/larger/greener planes like the A380 instead of stone-age 747s etc.

[aeropilot]

scenario8 said:

aeropilot said:

...In an ideal world, you'd level Watford town centre and suburbs...

Gets my vote.

So expansion has been spoken about for decades. It's now 2016.

regarding flattening Watford.

There's actually a Heathrow expansion plan from the mid 1950's that has a 3rd parallel runway pretty much on the same line as the current plan, and which would have involved flattening Harlington and Sipson.
It was cast aside as the Govt of the day didn't think there would ever be the volume of air traffic to justify it

[s2art]

kingston12 said:

The problem with the noise arguments is that they should have been used to limit what Heathrow is able to do with the new runway once it is (inevitably) approved rather than fighting the approval itself.

For example, the number of freight flights (which shouldn't really be operating out of Heathrow anyway) could be reduced, airlines who want to use the airport 'encouraged' to use quieter/larger/greener planes like the A380 instead of stone-age 747s etc.

By the time the runway is ready for service this will be a rapidly diminishing problem. very few new 747s being sold.

[kingston12]

s2art said:

kingston12 said:

The problem with the noise arguments is that they should have been used to limit what Heathrow is able to do with the new runway once it is (inevitably) approved rather than fighting the approval itself.

For example, the number of freight flights (which shouldn't really be operating out of Heathrow anyway) could be reduced, airlines who want to use the airport 'encouraged' to use quieter/larger/greener planes like the A380 instead of stone-age 747s etc.

By the time the runway is ready for service this will be a rapidly diminishing problem. very few new 747s being sold.

I didn't even realise that new ones were still being sold. It goes for all of the old fashioned designs. The newer planes are a much nicer experience for passengers and much quieter for those on the flight path.

[FredClogs]

[Wills2]

FredClogs said:

I didn't know he was still running the country?

[FredClogs]

Wills2 said:

I didn't know he was still running the country?

I don't think he ever was... Do you?

[scenario8]

I didn't really understand quite why he/they took that stance.

[hidetheelephants]

LotusMartin said:

Hallelujah- about F-ing time a government will balls makes a decision. To be honest I can't understand why they don't add new runways to Heathrow AND Gatwick - by the time 2025 arrives we'll wish we had.

These serial compulsive complainers should get over themselves, Vince Cable for one and I'm sure the Evil Dwarf Witch of the North will be sticking her unwanted oar in shortly...

Evil Dwarf Witch of the North is actually in favour of LHR expansion as of the 3 options it's the one which the crystal ball gazers and rune readers have said will benefit the scottish economy the most.

kingston12 said:

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.
<snip>
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.

Given May has made quite swift decisions on contentious subjects that CMD bottled it on(Hinkley, Heathrow) perhaps the LHR HS2 spur abandoned last year will be reinstated and make the extra runway work for far more people.

[Welshbeef]

aeropilot said:

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.

The third runway was thought about in he late 1950's

[FredClogs]

scenario8 said:

I didn't really understand quite why he/they took that stance.

Because it's a massive capital investment based on some pretty shaky reasoning that attracts some pretty ferocious opposition (rightly or wrongly) best play in politics if you don't know what to do is to do nothing, that said he didn't have to do nothing quite so openly I agree.

[skeggysteve]

JagLover said:

Heathrow is the most accessible for the rest of the country, so expanding Heathrow makes a big statement about prioritising the needs of the country rather than just London.

Sorry, but Heathrow is not the most accessible for the rest of the country. Expanding it is for the benefit of London and the south.

Up north we have East Midlands (technically the midlands but it's up north to you southerners!), Manchester, Leeds/Bradford etc. which are all far more accessible for anyone up here.

But carry on with the work and the disruption which I'm sure you'll all be on here moaning about!

[The Mad Monk]

Halb said:

Zach Goldsmith just said he will trigger a by-election if the expansion goes ahead.

Shrug.

[Welshbeef]

skeggysteve said:

Sorry, but Heathrow is not the most accessible for the rest of the country. Expanding it is for the benefit of London and the south.

Up north we have East Midlands (technically the midlands but it's up north to you southerners!), Manchester, Leeds/Bradford etc. which are all far more accessible for anyone up here.

But carry on with the work and the disruption which I'm sure you'll all be on here moaning about!

Up North you don't have a capacity issue far far from it.
Down south - which is where all these migrants stay means we have our biggest hub airport running st 98% capacity. BHX Manchester Gatwick are not even at 50%.

I'm glad Heathrow finally gets what it needs - actually I hope they get 4 runways for future proofing.

Happy for Gatwick to have two runways too ditto Luton (st airport) and Stansread too.

[s2art]

Welshbeef said:

skeggysteve said:

Sorry, but Heathrow is not the most accessible for the rest of the country. Expanding it is for the benefit of London and the south.

Up north we have East Midlands (technically the midlands but it's up north to you southerners!), Manchester, Leeds/Bradford etc. which are all far more accessible for anyone up here.

But carry on with the work and the disruption which I'm sure you'll all be on here moaning about!

Up North you don't have a capacity issue far far from it.
Down south - which is where all these migrants stay means we have our biggest hub airport running st 98% capacity. BHX Manchester Gatwick are not even at 50%.

I'm glad Heathrow finally gets what it needs - actually I hope they get 4 runways for future proofing.

Happy for Gatwick to have two runways too ditto Luton (st airport) and Stansread too.

I believe there is/was lots of support for Heathrow third runway from northern airports as it would increase flights to said airports, either by acting as a better hub or releasing more slots for internal flights.

[skeggysteve]

Welshbeef said:

...Down south - which is where all these migrants stay...

I think the people of Boston (Lincolnshire) might disagree with you on that one!

[hairyben]

Fair play to her, we've not had a politician since T with the balls to get stuff done. Basically tell a few people that when you live in a large society decisions must betaken for the whole and that everyone cant have exactly whats best for them as an individual, we've been stuck in the blair era (cameron included) of superficially trying to please everyone (especially key constituencies) and upset no-one and that gets nothing done, as everyones whining that they're the mostest specialest little snowflake.