Heathrow 3rd runway approved ..... or is it ...

Davidth88 · 25-10-2016 12:58PM #1

In another change of mind the UK Gov have decided that a third runway north of Heathrow is a way go.

What do people think ?

I always thought it was daft a second ( proper ) runway wasn't build at Gatwick ( then they built the North terminal exactly where there was space ) and that Stansted has room to expand

I used to live in Ruislip/Northolt for 40 odd years so I know the economic boom LHR has delivered to the are , basically unemployment when I was there was virtually nil even through the Thatcher years.
However I think it's the wrong place

Jamie2k9 · 25-10-2016 04:35PM

Fantastic to see it given the go ahead. It was always the right area for the runway and the millions spent over the last 10 years was just passing the book.

TBH I think David C would of had to clear Gatwick but not by choice. May has done a fine job, handling Johnson and a few others.

duskyjoe · 25-10-2016 05:27PM

Jamie I think it's a mess. Boris is totally against it and he's right......way too many vested interests .......it'll takes years to get off the ground with potential legal battles looming. I thought LGW was the obvious choice for more capacity.

Jamie2k9 · 25-10-2016 05:35PM

duskyjoe wrote: »

Jamie I think it's a mess. Boris is totally against it and he's right......way too many vested interests .......it'll takes years to get off the ground with potential legal battles looming. I thought LGW was the obvious choice for more capacity.

In an idea world both should of been cleared together. It would of been made to give one to LGW over LHR.

Jan_de_Bakker · 25-10-2016 11:09PM

Just looking at google maps there, where are they gonna put it ?

It looks like it will be tight ..

Foggy43 · 25-10-2016 11:21PM

Heathrow hasn't actually got it and still may not. Heathrow has been approved by a Commons transport sub committee. Theresa May has agreed with their decision. The House of Commons will vote on the sub committee's decision in December 2017. Only then we will know what the result will be. Of course provided we still have the same government in power then.

We will more than likely have Teleportation before Heathrow or Gatwick get another runway.

Jamie2k9 · 25-10-2016 11:29PM

Foggy43 wrote: »

Heathrow hasn't actually got it and still may not. Heathrow has been approved by a Commons transport sub committee. Theresa May has agreed with their decision. The House of Commons will vote on the sub committee's decision in December 2017. Only then we will know what the result will be. Of course provided we still have the same government in power then.

We will more than likely have Teleportation before Heathrow or Gatwick get another runway.

MP will clear it, SNP, Lots of LAB and Tories. I would be very surprised if courts reject it however it could drag on and I think 2025 is very optimistic.

Jamie2k9 · 25-10-2016 11:30PM

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Just looking at google maps there, where are they gonna put it ?

It looks like it will be tight ..

They are knocking down around 800 houses in the area.

Jan_de_Bakker · 26-10-2016 07:36AM

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

They are knocking down around 800 houses in the area.

:O .. no wonder the controversy,,

Davidth88 · 26-10-2016 09:27AM

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Just looking at google maps there, where are they gonna put it ?

It looks like it will be tight ..

Knowing that area very well , they will basically knock Sipson which is one of the few remaining villages in the area , its a very old village going back to the Doomsday book and has a couple of really nice pubs :-)

Also , I assume it will mean the approach on the 27 ( very RIght ) as this will become will be right over North London .....making life in Hayes /Ealing even worse.

I know people will say " well the airport was there blah blah blah " but TBH I knew some people who lived not far from the finals of 27L and they regularly lost roof tiles, the noise was unreal from the landing aircraft. Now that was 20 years ago so it's possible that later generation aircraft have better noise patterns on landing.

I don't thank god drive there much now , but that part of the M25 is totally clogged already.

To put this in context I was a spotter , I am a keen aviation watcher ex PPL .....so normally I would be in favour of airport expansion but I think LHR is the wrong place right now.

Blut2 · 26-10-2016 03:11PM

The expected completed date for this is the most ridiculous thing about it. An aimed for date of 2025, presuming there are no delays? Heathrow is a congested mess that desperately needs the extra runway today, nevermind what its going to be like in a decade.

They should be building an extra runway at Heathrow as well as one at Gatwick, and both a lot sooner.

Though I suppose the delays could be positive for DUB if IAG keep routing North American traffic this way.

afatbollix · 26-10-2016 03:14PM

£25 billion that's just crazy money. The Dublin 2nd runway is costing €300 million.

Hell thats a 1/4 of the Irish budget each year just spent on tarmac.

Should of given the go ahead for both as Heathrow is going to be years in the courts.

Cookiemunster · 26-10-2016 03:16PM

afatbollix wrote: »

£25 billion that's just crazy money. The Dublin 2nd runway is costing €300 million.

Hell thats a 1/4 of the Irish budget each year just spent on tarmac.

Should of given the go ahead for both as Heathrow is going to be years in the courts.

Heathrow doesn't own the land that they want to build on. DAA do. And land acquisition costs in London would be much more expensive than in Dublin. Plus DAA bought fields. Heathrow has to buy a whole village.

afatbollix · 26-10-2016 03:20PM

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Heathrow doesn't own the land that they want to build on. DAA do. And land acquisition costs in London would make Dublin look very cheap.

Gatwick has already started buying up the land already

JCX BXC · 26-10-2016 03:39PM

afatbollix wrote: »

Gatwick has already started buying up the land already

Gatwick isn't a major hub like Heathrow though.

Jack1985 · 26-10-2016 03:44PM

Carnacalla wrote: »

Gatwick isn't a major hub like Heathrow though.

Gatwick is the World's busiest single-runway airport. A major hub to one of Europe's largest low-cost carriers. Plenty of airlines willing to operate from LGW over LHR.

arubex · 28-10-2016 08:15AM

Carnacalla wrote: »

Gatwick isn't a major hub like Heathrow though.

It could be, with a second runway and leaving Heathrow unchanged to make it increasingly unattractive to new entrants.

The whole Heathrow argument is circular; airlines say they go there because that's where the passengers are, but the passengers only go there because that's where the flights are.

My ideal would be for two-runway Gatwick to be connected to two-runway Heathrow with some form of Beijing-style maglev train; with transfers in 10 minutes, faster than walking through the terminals today, they could be the north and south super-terminals of one coordinated airport complex. Heathwick!

flanzer · 28-10-2016 09:10AM

I wouldn't be putting my mortgage on it being built. 1 community gone (Longford), 2 further communities pretty much gone (Sipson and Harmondsworth), churches, commercial enterprise, generations of family and it's upheaval

The offer I believe for residents within the affected areas is market value +25%, which is bullsh1t imo. That value only represents a material value. You can't put a price on the sense of community, family values and the sense of belonging somewhere, and if you can, it would want to be well north of +25%!

The legal challenges will go on for a hell of a long time

JCX BXC · 28-10-2016 08:52PM

Jack1985 wrote: »

Gatwick is the World's busiest single-runway airport. A major hub to one of Europe's largest low-cost carriers. Plenty of airlines willing to operate from LGW over LHR.

Like who? Most of the longhaul carriers I see in LGW are only there because LHR is full.

Look at Atlanta, small enough city in world standards, world's largest airport with amazing connections, then look at New York a world city, but with 3 airports, fairly good connections, but not exactly a world major hub (Likely more than Dublin, but nothing compared to Atlanta, Dubai, Heathrow)

IMO A runway for both Gatwick and Heathrow is the sensible solutin.

Irish Steve · 28-10-2016 11:29PM

A good example of the way things are going is Istanbul. Ataturk is full, and beyond capacity now. They won't accept anything smaller than a 320, a significant number of the flights are wide body aircraft 330 or 777, the second airport is becoming increasingly busy, and there is a new massive airport being built some way north east of Istanbul that will be capable of taking some 80 Million passengers a year, albeit that it is mired in legal objections at present.

Heathrow should have been moved to an alternative location 20 years ago, there were several options that could have been viable, but the political inertia, and the NIMBY issues meant that most of the alternatives would have been mired in objections for a very long time.

Boris Johnson's option of a new airport on a man made island in the Medway area is problematic because it's at sea level and prone to fog problems, while modern aircraft can and do operate in Cat 3 conditions, once they are on the ground, getting them from the runway to the stand in poor visibility is problematic, so they need a location that can operate at maximum flow rates most of the time.

One option would have been to upgrade and extend the old Greenham Common base that's further west of London, but that didn't gel with the people that make the decisions.

Like it or not, it's all about connections and interlining, a huge number of passengers at Heathrow arrive by air, and then depart by air to another destination, while the Ryanair point to point model works well for short haul, the same is not yet true for long haul, so there are large number of transit passengers at Heathrow, and that's not going to change any time soon, unless an economic smaller long haul aircraft becomes available, and there's no sign of that happening at present, the trend in recent years has been towards things like the 380, and larger 777's. In theory, it would be possible to transfer from Heathrow to Gatwick, Stansted or even Luton, but that would require some decent ground connections, which very much don't exist at present, the time to get from one London Airport to another is at present unacceptable to be viable for connection purposes, and that's on a good day without accidents on the M25.

The real worry with Heathrow is that the approach most of the time is over very heavily populated areas, there hasn't been a significant crash at Heathrow for many years, the most recent close shave was the 777 that had double engine failure on short final, and the crew were able to "stretch" the approach to get it into the airfield. If a large aircraft were to crash in central London, I suspect that the acceptance of Heathrow would change very rapidly, even though air travel as such is incredibly safe when compared to other forms of travel, but it would only take one major incident, and the whole attitude towards Heathrow could change very quickly.

Heathrow 3rd runway approved ..... or is it ...

Comments