Heathrow 3rd Runway.
Discussion
Vickers_VC10 said:
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.
Just heard a commentator on the BBC news say this ruling has impacts for other infrastructure projects.
Sheepshanks said:
Just heard a commentator on the BBC news say this ruling has impacts for other infrastructure projects.
In a more general sense, government being held to their own commitments isn't such a bad thing. If it pushes them in future to not make commitments they can't/won't keep to, that might be better all round. As it has been in the past, with a decent majority essentially only the ruling party itself is any sort of check on commitments by government or party in lieu of elections.I remain sceptical about the urgent need for more capacity at Heathrow and if we really do need more airport capacity, think it'd be better building it out in the provinces.
But this farce yet again shows the laws of unintended consequences at their very best.
Virtue signalling climate act will now scupper tons of stuff peoe object to. But I guess it gives Boris an escape route on any infrastructure plans... 50 hospitals - sorry, the court won't let us.
Get the feckin act scrapped or modified to be advisory/target only and not something that can be used in the courts. Huge opportunity awaits if we do. Carbon arbitrage
But this farce yet again shows the laws of unintended consequences at their very best.
Virtue signalling climate act will now scupper tons of stuff peoe object to. But I guess it gives Boris an escape route on any infrastructure plans... 50 hospitals - sorry, the court won't let us.
Get the feckin act scrapped or modified to be advisory/target only and not something that can be used in the courts. Huge opportunity awaits if we do. Carbon arbitrage
Murph7355 said:
I remain sceptical about the urgent need for more capacity at Heathrow and if we really do need more airport capacity, think it'd be better building it out in the provinces.
That's missing the point.We don't need more airport capacity as a generic, Heathrow as a specific location needs the capacity.
Expanding Luton, Birmigham or elsewhere doesn't give extra capacity at Heathrow which is groaning under pressure at 99.5% capacity as the people flying into Heathrow don't want to fly into Luton, Birmingham or where ever.
oyster said:
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.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
I bet you use the term Chinese 'tat' don't you?
You say in China that life is cheap and workers are expendable... 'roughshod production'?
Yeah, and it's all milk and honey here too, eh?
When you can plan and build the highest (and the longest) bridges in the world among a vast array of other world leading infrastructure, you also need something way beyond 'life is cheap and workers are expendable' -
Guess what else you need?
SKILLS! The Chinese have it in droves.
Even if we had their 'expendable' workforce we still couldn't do it.
Why?
Because we'd still want another f meeting, another waste of money, more waste of resources, and by the time a decision is eventually taken to actually do something, it probably wouldn't be needed.
FFS! we can't even organise our infrastructure or filling of potholes. We couldn't even build a bridge over flooded river when needed!
Here's a local example of how things have gone backward.
One thousand, four hundred pupils have had a 'footbridge' over a main trunk road outside their school for decades. Makes 'simple' sense. It ensured all pupils can cross safely - it's been there as long as I can remember, probably since I was born (long time ago!).
It just got left and left like so much today in this country until the point it was requiring a bit of attention and repair. Pupils still used it.
What do we do?
Typical of this country today. Repair it, strengthen it?
Oh f
k no, let's organise several meetings round tables. Not one, we need lots of meetings. Eventually ...a decision is made. Geronimo!
Demolish the bridge and put a f. zebra (puffin) crossing there instead!
This is what has changed in this once 'sensible' country and is a classic example of the shift in thinking that has been implemented.
In time gone by (not that long ago), the natural solution was to build a bridge - the best solution for everyone.
Now, even when there is already a physical bridge still there in place, the numbskulls' solution is to pull it down which in itself will obstruct the traffic whilst doing so, even if that means children are less safe.
Generations of pupils have safely crossed this road but today finance comes first.
Just around the corner almost at the same time as the 'penny pinching' (lives expendable?) decision was taken a pupil got struck by a car.
Talking of 'sensible', guess why that footbridge was built in the first place? A child was struck by a car!
No messing back in the day, the new footbridge was in place in no time and at a time when traffic was nowhere near today's figures.
I predict next round the table meeting will be high levels of pollution at said crossing where none prevailed previously.
We are led by the f braindead.
What was it you were saying about lives being expendable?
If you're going to slag off China, ensure you've paid it a visit first.
aeropilot said:
That's missing the point.
We don't need more airport capacity as a generic, Heathrow as a specific location needs the capacity.
Expanding Luton, Birmigham or elsewhere doesn't give extra capacity at Heathrow which is groaning under pressure at 99.5% capacity as the people flying into Heathrow don't want to fly into Luton, Birmingham or where ever.
I live in south west London and use Heathrow a lot, maybe 10 times a year. I'd be equally happy to use Gatwick instead if they had the flights I want. I'd imagine there are lots of people who would quite happily switch from Heathrow to Gatwick if they had the flights available, I can't be the only one who would.We don't need more airport capacity as a generic, Heathrow as a specific location needs the capacity.
Expanding Luton, Birmigham or elsewhere doesn't give extra capacity at Heathrow which is groaning under pressure at 99.5% capacity as the people flying into Heathrow don't want to fly into Luton, Birmingham or where ever.
Blacksquid said:
aeropilot said:
That's missing the point.
We don't need more airport capacity as a generic, Heathrow as a specific location needs the capacity.
Expanding Luton, Birmigham or elsewhere doesn't give extra capacity at Heathrow which is groaning under pressure at 99.5% capacity as the people flying into Heathrow don't want to fly into Luton, Birmingham or where ever.
I live in south west London and use Heathrow a lot, maybe 10 times a year. I'd be equally happy to use Gatwick instead if they had the flights I want. I'd imagine there are lots of people who would quite happily switch from Heathrow to Gatwick if they had the flights available, I can't be the only one who would.We don't need more airport capacity as a generic, Heathrow as a specific location needs the capacity.
Expanding Luton, Birmigham or elsewhere doesn't give extra capacity at Heathrow which is groaning under pressure at 99.5% capacity as the people flying into Heathrow don't want to fly into Luton, Birmingham or where ever.
Heathrow is a hub airport, and Gatwick isn't.
Now, had the Govt not forced the brake-up of BAA, and the spliting apart of Heathrow and Gatwick and then allowed the high speed rail link proposal (which they cancelled 18 months ago) then the combined Heathrow-Gatwick hub with a 20 min fast rail connection between the two would have been a workable compromise going forward.
But because the Govt of whatever party can't see into the future beyond the end if its nose we just keep f
king everything up.....aeropilot said:
Again, only part of the point, its as much about the people coming here than about the people already here.
Heathrow is a hub airport, and Gatwick isn't.
Now, had the Govt not forced the brake-up of BAA, and the spliting apart of Heathrow and Gatwick and then allowed the high speed rail link proposal (which they cancelled 18 months ago) then the combined Heathrow-Gatwick hub with a 20 min fast rail connection between the two would have been a workable compromise going forward.
But because the Govt of whatever party can't see into the future beyond the end if its nose we just keep fking everything up.....
I have often thought using RAF Northolt would have been a better bet. The runway needs to be rotated a bit AIUI, but use it for short hauls with a secure underground airside rail link to Heathrow, which converts to long haul only. You already have good road links into and out of London (unlike Gatwick, which is a terrible drive from central London), and it’s next to a tube line. Heathrow is a hub airport, and Gatwick isn't.
Now, had the Govt not forced the brake-up of BAA, and the spliting apart of Heathrow and Gatwick and then allowed the high speed rail link proposal (which they cancelled 18 months ago) then the combined Heathrow-Gatwick hub with a 20 min fast rail connection between the two would have been a workable compromise going forward.
But because the Govt of whatever party can't see into the future beyond the end if its nose we just keep f
king everything up.....Too many nice (and expensive) towns and villages to the west of there perhaps, which would find themselves under a heavy use flight path.
Sam.M said:
Sheepshanks said:
Sam.M said:
article said:
But the judges said that in future, a third runway could go ahead, as long as it fits with the UK's climate commitments.
Airbus already on it.
Although at the minute its one engine replaced with a 2MW motor and most of the interior is now batteries and a turbine engine generator. I think the idea though, is that they would use the eFan on take offs and landings but not during cruise. It can, or will, regen on gliding down.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Thursday 27th February 16:03
Sam.M said:
rxe said:
Commercial passenger planes (flying wing or otherwise) - not a chance.
It's just a matter of battery density, which is exponentially improving.Will you also take the bet?
The level of idiocy being spouted about replacing the ICE with electric this and electric that because of the "climate emergency" concocted by a few drug-addled hippies simply beggars belief and there are no politicians with the balls to stand up and disagree because they fear being voted out of office. When I listen to the Mayor of London spouting that the Heathrow third runway judgement is good for London and the economy because we'll all be leading the way with new technologies they haven't even invented yet and we must change everything because of the "cwimate emergency" it makes me throw up a little in my own mouth.
The West is at risk of driving itself into a new dark age, where only the rich & powerful will be able to afford personal transport and the freedom it brings. The rest of us will be condemned to huddling in our poorly heated houses and travelling no further than we can get on a bike of shanks' pony.
Tootles the Taxi said:
How do you propose to find the raw materials for all these batteries? How safe will several thousand airliners all powered by lithium batteries made in a massive Chinese sweatshop be? Try taking a significant number of lithium camera batteries on a commercial flight at the moment without being grilled at airport security about the potential for some or all of them to spontaneously combust whilst at 37,000 feet.
The level of idiocy being spouted about replacing the ICE with electric this and electric that because of the "climate emergency" concocted by a few drug-addled hippies simply beggars belief and there are no politicians with the balls to stand up and disagree because they fear being voted out of office. When I listen to the Mayor of London spouting that the Heathrow third runway judgement is good for London and the economy because we'll all be leading the way with new technologies they haven't even invented yet and we must change everything because of the "cwimate emergency" it makes me throw up a little in my own mouth.
The West is at risk of driving itself into a new dark age, where only the rich & powerful will be able to afford personal transport and the freedom it brings. The rest of us will be condemned to huddling in our poorly heated houses and travelling no further than we can get on a bike of shanks' pony.
“Drug-addled hippies”? The level of idiocy being spouted about replacing the ICE with electric this and electric that because of the "climate emergency" concocted by a few drug-addled hippies simply beggars belief and there are no politicians with the balls to stand up and disagree because they fear being voted out of office. When I listen to the Mayor of London spouting that the Heathrow third runway judgement is good for London and the economy because we'll all be leading the way with new technologies they haven't even invented yet and we must change everything because of the "cwimate emergency" it makes me throw up a little in my own mouth.
The West is at risk of driving itself into a new dark age, where only the rich & powerful will be able to afford personal transport and the freedom it brings. The rest of us will be condemned to huddling in our poorly heated houses and travelling no further than we can get on a bike of shanks' pony.
Are you just ignoring the scientists or are they all on the gear too?
Maybe you didn’t mention them because it doesn’t give you an equal opportunity to exercise your class snobbism?
You were right to question the viability of electric powered planes but then you went and ruined it all.
Venisonpie said:
Gets Boris off the hook nicely. As a West London nimby I'm delighted however I wouldn't think this is the end of it.
I was looking forward to seeing him make good on his promise to lie down in front of the bulldozers. Mind you, it could have been a fairly even contest - Boris does look like quite a unit.Blacksquid said:
I live in south west London and use Heathrow a lot, maybe 10 times a year. I'd be equally happy to use Gatwick instead if they had the flights I want. I'd imagine there are lots of people who would quite happily switch from Heathrow to Gatwick if they had the flights available, I can't be the only one who would.
Heathrow, Luton and Stansted are the only locations that suit the non-London centric view of the world.Gatwick and Boris Island do nothing for the rest of the country that don't live in the South East corner.
Evanivitch said:
Blacksquid said:
I live in south west London and use Heathrow a lot, maybe 10 times a year. I'd be equally happy to use Gatwick instead if they had the flights I want. I'd imagine there are lots of people who would quite happily switch from Heathrow to Gatwick if they had the flights available, I can't be the only one who would.
Heathrow, Luton and Stansted are the only locations that suit the non-London centric view of the world.Gatwick and Boris Island do nothing for the rest of the country that don't live in the South East corner.
Tootles the Taxi said:
When I listen to the Mayor of London spouting that the Heathrow third runway judgement is good for London and the economy because we'll all be leading the way with new technologies they haven't even invented yet and we must change everything because of the "cwimate emergency" it makes me throw up a little in my own mouth.
The London Mayor is a utter bellend.
Decision good for the economy.....
markyb_lcy said:
“Drug-addled hippies”?
Are you just ignoring the scientists or are they all on the gear too?
Maybe you didn’t mention them because it doesn’t give you an equal opportunity to exercise your class snobbism?
You were right to question the viability of electric powered planes but then you went and ruined it all.
I'm not a scientist, and I am sceptical of their pronouncements, simply because none of their previous doomsday predictions (presumably based on their expert analysis and climate modelling) have yet to come to pass. It's too simplistic to point to a few bad winters in the past 10 years and extrapolate from that a global shift in the climate. The weather isn't the same as the climate. Are you just ignoring the scientists or are they all on the gear too?
Maybe you didn’t mention them because it doesn’t give you an equal opportunity to exercise your class snobbism?
You were right to question the viability of electric powered planes but then you went and ruined it all.
Politicians of all political colours are weak willed charlatans who will jump on the most convenient bandwagon if it means staying in power or getting the other lot out. When I hear the rubbish that politicians say about topics that cover my areas of expertise and the constant errors they make, I can only conclude that they must have the same understanding of what their sudden environmental epiphany will mean for the average punter.
I can't afford an EV. I can't afford to heat my home using electricity, even at current prices. How much will the power companies gouge us for when we're no longer allowed to use gas or oil fired central heating? Ground source and air mass heat pumps don't work very effectively in our relatively warm and damp climate - I know this because I had to carry out research on it as part of my job. Hundreds of people who were sold air-mass heat pumps as a "green" and cheaper alternative to their existing gas-fired heating have now discovered they don't work and cause their electricity bills to rocket.
So don't attack me for being unconvinced by a campaign orchestrated by people who see it as their goal in life to destroy the current format of western civilisation through their own misguided belief in anarchy.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff