Heathrow 3rd Runway.
Discussion
The court opposition to the 3rd runway does open the door to some government re-think.
Option A is to push for the "Boris Island" idea, which is of course a much better location to build a busy international airport.
Option B is for government to wake up to the nonsense of signing up to bull$hyte environmentalist agendas. And hopefully to create a UK made specific environment policy that maintains the ability of the nation to build the infrastructure it needs and allows the UK to prosper.
Option A is to push for the "Boris Island" idea, which is of course a much better location to build a busy international airport.
Option B is for government to wake up to the nonsense of signing up to bull$hyte environmentalist agendas. And hopefully to create a UK made specific environment policy that maintains the ability of the nation to build the infrastructure it needs and allows the UK to prosper.
Robertj21a said:
Mrr T said:
That's always being proposed but the problem is 30% of Heathrow passangers are just transiting. This is a figure Heathrow and BA want to increase and it does not work if you have to move between two airports.
Always a struggle to comprehend why we need to cater for 30% who are merely using us to pass through to somewhere else.......Lots of jobs are supported by it all don't forget, in the total supply chain, not just those on the ground at the airport.
Look up the definition of exponential.
Battery capacity is increasing incrementally - 10% here and there.
I don’t bet (ever), but I am entirely confident that there will not be a commercially viable electric plane flying passengers in the same volume and price as today by 2030.
If you doubt me, just consider the physics.
Work out the energy contained in a 737s fuel tanks.
Then identify the radical aerodynamic shift that will make it more efficient. Flying wing might get you 20%, but there’s a reason no one has done it yet.
Then work out the order of magnitude shift in battery tech that will get you the energy density you need.
Then look at the development cycle for a commercial airliner. Hint, the 777, which is just conventional wings + tube + engines took 8 years from concept to delivery.
To get a commercial plane by 2030, you’ve got less than a year to solve the physics. Crack on.
Battery capacity is increasing incrementally - 10% here and there.
I don’t bet (ever), but I am entirely confident that there will not be a commercially viable electric plane flying passengers in the same volume and price as today by 2030.
If you doubt me, just consider the physics.
Work out the energy contained in a 737s fuel tanks.
Then identify the radical aerodynamic shift that will make it more efficient. Flying wing might get you 20%, but there’s a reason no one has done it yet.
Then work out the order of magnitude shift in battery tech that will get you the energy density you need.
Then look at the development cycle for a commercial airliner. Hint, the 777, which is just conventional wings + tube + engines took 8 years from concept to delivery.
To get a commercial plane by 2030, you’ve got less than a year to solve the physics. Crack on.
Shakermaker said:
777 took 5 years, not 8, but that's relatively moot point given that as you say, it was building on an already conventional method of propulsion etc.
8 years to first delivery https://www.boeing.com/history/products/777.page
(ok, 7.7 years,.... :-). )
rxe said:
Shakermaker said:
777 took 5 years, not 8, but that's relatively moot point given that as you say, it was building on an already conventional method of propulsion etc.
8 years to first delivery https://www.boeing.com/history/products/777.page
(ok, 7.7 years,.... :-). )
"The 777 program was launched in October 1990 with an order from United Airlines. In June 1995, United flew its first 777 in revenue service. "
I wouldn't like to land a large electric plane. Being that it will be same weight landing as it was on take off. Going to need some hefty landing gear.
Also is there any electric motor that can pump out thrust at the speed of a jet? Or are we just going to be going yo propeller plane's? Ok for short hops wouldn't want to fly to Australia in one.
Also what are economics of having a plane that needs to spend most of its life sat on the ground charging up? if it's on the ground it's not making money.
Also is there any electric motor that can pump out thrust at the speed of a jet? Or are we just going to be going yo propeller plane's? Ok for short hops wouldn't want to fly to Australia in one.
Also what are economics of having a plane that needs to spend most of its life sat on the ground charging up? if it's on the ground it's not making money.
Robertj21a said:
Always a struggle to comprehend why we need to cater for 30% who are merely using us to pass through to somewhere else.......
This a semi-comedic video asking why does Heathrow need to expand, but it includes some of these points.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXmpdJO9UOc
ks too. Sam.M said:
surveyor said:
Work it out genius's.
Some countries can get a hospital built in a week. Our infrastructure projects take a decade or more to get beyond the desk.
There's a balance somewhere - and we are on the extreme side.
Some countries can get a hospital built in a week. Our infrastructure projects take a decade or more to get beyond the desk.
There's a balance somewhere - and we are on the extreme side.
- Geniuses
If you're advocating for the kind of centralised authoritarian governmental structure that allows for this kind of rapid roughshod production then I'll consider your opinions to be somewhat lacking and pay little attention them going forward.
Of course that's not to say there aren't planning improvements that could be made here, but still.
Edited by Sam.M on Thursday 27th February 11:02
This decision is just another great example why we are. It's what happens when we sign up to stupid unrealistic unachievable promises on tackling client change.
Not-The-Messiah said:
Also what are economics of having a plane that needs to spend most of its life sat on the ground charging up? if it's on the ground it's not making money.
This could be the biggest challenge. And one that sets electric aircraft apart from cars in terms of viability.Not-The-Messiah said:
Don't worry once we slowly die as a nation our workers will be cheap and expendable to.
This decision is just another great example why we are. It's what happens when we sign up to stupid unrealistic unachievable promises on tackling client change.
"Client change" now and then is not a bad thing.This decision is just another great example why we are. It's what happens when we sign up to stupid unrealistic unachievable promises on tackling client change.
vaud said:
Sheepshanks said:
The anti-HS2 people will be studying every details of this.
Don't think it would help them.Trains are very efficient for CO2/mile.
Scrap this bloody third runway and stop pumping the cash into a dying industry. Given the current world view on pollution , I believe air passenger numbers will drop and in twenty years air passenger numbers will be massively down on what they are today.
The arse will fall out of China eventually so the comparisons to us are moot imo.
Vickers_VC10 said:
Exactly this. Rail ftw.
Scrap this bloody third runway and stop pumping the cash into a dying industry. Given the current world view on pollution , I believe air passenger numbers will drop and in twenty years air passenger numbers will be massively down on what they are today.
Boris' next vanity project ... the trans-atlantic railway? Scrap this bloody third runway and stop pumping the cash into a dying industry. Given the current world view on pollution , I believe air passenger numbers will drop and in twenty years air passenger numbers will be massively down on what they are today.
Vickers_VC10 said:
Exactly this. Rail ftw.
Scrap this bloody third runway and stop pumping the cash into a dying industry. Given the current world view on pollution , I believe air passenger numbers will drop and in twenty years air passenger numbers will be massively down on what they are today.
The arse will fall out of China eventually so the comparisons to us are moot imo.
People still want to travel long distances quickly for business or holiday and goods need to get quickly around the world. Aviation is under pressure but it’s expanding and numbers are up not going down. Scrap this bloody third runway and stop pumping the cash into a dying industry. Given the current world view on pollution , I believe air passenger numbers will drop and in twenty years air passenger numbers will be massively down on what they are today.
The arse will fall out of China eventually so the comparisons to us are moot imo.
The Heathrow runway has always been a political minefield. Gatwick and Heathrow expansion have been delayed by numerous governments long before people were that worried about climate change.
El stovey said:
People still want to travel long distances quickly for business or holiday and goods need to get quickly around the world. Aviation is under pressure but it’s expanding and numbers are up not going down.
The Heathrow runway has always been a political minefield. Gatwick and Heathrow expansion have been delayed by numerous governments long before people were that worried about climate change.
The kids of today are growing up with planes bad drummed into them. When they are adults their won't be the mindset of having to travel for business and who's to say connectivity won't change most things can be done over video conferencing anyway. The world is changing. Open your eyes or ignore it. The Heathrow runway has always been a political minefield. Gatwick and Heathrow expansion have been delayed by numerous governments long before people were that worried about climate change.
Edited by Vickers_VC10 on Thursday 27th February 13:33
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff