Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[eightf48544]

Is there a later thread on the third runway if so please move this post.

This topic seems to be hotting up again with the goverment hitting into the long grass once again.

I have one question. I thought the Davies report said 70,000 new jobs around Heathrow, but the airport chappie on the Today programme said 40,000.

However my question still apllies.

Where are they all going to live and how will they get to work?

Another thing he said was the M4/25 were more polluting than the airport!

Willy Walsh  was quoted as saying BA^» (British Airways - about) wouldn't pay for the expansion in increased landing fees and they'd move out possibly to Madrid.

I can't see the airport being able to pay for the new runway terminals and all the infra structure upgrades to road and rail links etc. so the taxpayer will have to subsidise it.

[Red Squirrel]

If Dr Steve Melia's sources are correct, 80% of flights are for leisure purposes and most of those from the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) are outbound - i.e. British people taking trips (and spending their money) abroad. Therefore the best thing we can do, if we wish to benefit our own economy is: nothing.

[Richard Fairhurst]

Indeed. A cursory scan through http://www.heathrow.com/departures always shows a long list of flights to Brussels, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Aberdeen, Paris - places that should be better reached by train (and Amsterdam should be on that list, too). If Heathrow's capacity is at its limits, start by removing the flights to these places, and improving interchange to make integrated air/rail journeys easy.

[TaplowGreen]

Listen to the CBI, it needs to be done for the sake of British business, and it needs to be at Heathrow. Business demands it, the economy and thousands of jobs will depend on it and there needs to be an end to this ceaseless kicking the can down the road before making a decision.

Virtually no-one who lives in the area now was there before the airport was built so they all knew it was there when they made the decision to live there.

It's unfortunate for Sipson etc but no worse than the scar that HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) will rip across the land.

I realise a lot of people on this forum see rail as a panacea for everything when it comes to transport but I'm afraid it just doesn't work

The argument about binning all domestic flights doesn't stack up - they don't just cater for domestic flights, there are people flying in from all over the World and changing flights at Heathrow for these destinations and elsewhere (hence it's a "hub"), do you seriously expect them to hump all their luggage across London to get on a train for hours on our unreliable network? it takes over 7 hours to get to Aberdeen (one of those cited) by train from London, in most cases involving at least one change of train! No - they will take their Business elsewhere instead........and what message would this send to those in Scotland who want to break up the Union?

Get on with it, and get it built  (but for God's sake don't let the rail industry price it or give it a timeline!!!)

[Rhydgaled]

Listen to the CBI, it needs to be done for the sake of British business, and it needs to be at Heathrow. Business demands it, the economy and thousands of jobs will depend on it and there needs to be an end to this ceaseless kicking the can down the road before making a decision.

The endless derferral of a decision needs to stop, agreed, but don't listen to the CBI. Listen to the scientists; certain greenhouse gases cause more damage to the climate when emitted at altitude than at ground level, and even water vapour is a greenhouse gas at altitude unlike at ground level.

I don't think there are many pepole left who deny that we should cut emmisions. If we take that word (cut) in a different context, there has been much argument over the government's spending cuts and one comment was that the NHS is exlcuded from spending cuts but this means deeper cuts elsewhere. There are stong arguments for excluding the NHS from spending cuts but in the case of greenhouse gas emmissions is it right that anything should be excluded at the expense of other sectors having to cut more? I certainly don't think aviation should be excluded from having to make cuts.

Stop delaying and make a final decision: NO MORE AVIATION EXPANSION, FULL STOP!

[Richard Fairhurst]

The argument about binning all domestic flights doesn't stack up - they don't just cater for domestic flights, there are people flying in from all over the World and changing flights at Heathrow for these destinations and elsewhere (hence it's a "hub"), do you seriously expect them to hump all their luggage across London to get on a train for hours on our unreliable network?

No, which is why I said:

improving interchange to make integrated air/rail journeys easy

Fact is that Heathrow's major competitor as a hub, Schiphol, utterly trounces it for air-rail interchange. As, of course, do Gatwick and even Birmingham. It can be done (heavens, you could run trains from Heathrow to Kings Cross/St Pancras and remove the need to "hump" with just one small bit of knitting), it's just that Heathrow and its cheerleaders rarely understand anything other than unquestioningly piling on more and more capacity.

[Thatcham Crossing]

I'm with TG, the latest hoofing into the long grass is purely for political reasons, which is just plain weak on the part of our current Govt. I almost felt sorry for McLoughlin on TV this morning having to be the apologist for this latest situation.

He's now even saying that Gatwick is still in the running, so what was the point of the money and time spent by the Davies Commission? Gatwick is not a hub airport (and never will be). There is simply not enough long haul throughput (flights to various "beach" destinations excepted) and the airlines will not be persuaded to put it there.

Recent examples of the LHR vs. LGW situation, in the news this week:
- Cathay Pacific fly 5 times daily from Heathrow to Hong Kong (25 flights a week). They announced yesterday that next year they will start   flights from Gatwick, 4 times a week. I suspect this LGW schedule is only starting because there is no room left for them to expand at LHR.
- Indonesian flag-carrier Garuda re-started flights to Jakarta, via Amsterdam, out of Gatwick about 18 months ago. Just announced that these will move to Heathrow next year.

Heathrow is where the World's biggest airlines want to be, Gatwick is the waiting room.

As further evidence of this, here is a list (off the top of my head) of long-haul airlines over the last approx. 20-25 years that have started Ops at Gatwick, then moved them to Heathrow:

Cathay Pacific (they were originally a LGW operator, before moving to LHR and building their operation to what it is today)
Air New Zealand
Philippine Airlines
Korean Air
All Nippon (ANA, Japan)
American Airlines
Continental (although now as part of United)
Aeromexico
Virgin Atlantic (were originally an LGW-only operator)
Garuda Indonesia (were an LGW airline back in the 80's and 90's, then stopped operations for many years - they were banned from EU^» (European Union - about) airspace on safety grounds - then restarted at LGW - with shiny new Boeings - and will move to LHR).

We are an international laughing stock 

[simonw]

It is interesting that everyone want to brush environmental issues under the carpet.

For a local airport Heathrow is fine, but placing a major airport hub for 70m passengers in between dozens of villages, small towns, M4, M25 and upwind of London means the financials costs will be ridiculous.

If the country wants a single airport with 4-6 runways, then the only option is a Boris Island plan.

One of the options mentioned years ago was adding a 2nd runway to Gatwick and a MagLev link Gatwick to Heathrow.

Another option is to move Terminals away from airports, but have them in the centre of cities and use MagLev trains to link these to the airports. Then London can have 2/3/4 airports serviced by a single Terminal.

[Steve Bray]

I agree with Thatcham. The airlines all want Heathrow and the sooner the 3rd runway is built there, the better. As we know there are a few anti-LHR politicians making a lot of noise (Boris, Zac Goldsmith & Justine Greening etc). Would anyone really care if Justine Greening resigned her post if a third runway went ahead?

Noise from aircraft is a way of life (I work in Isleworth with aircraft flying overhead on the approach to LHR every few minutes). Anyone who has moved to this area in the last 40+ years (which would be most people) cannot really have any arguments, as big planes have been flying into LHR all that time.

An extra runway won't all of a sudden mean extra flights to New York, for instance - there is only a finite amount of demand -  but it would allow new destinations to be linked directly to the UK^▸ (United Kingdom). LHR is one of the few airports where you stack for ages before landing; a new runway should mean that aircraft descend and then land, as happens when with most other airports I've flown into.

My only concession is that currently you get the same airlines operating flights in rapid succession to certain destinations. This evening, for instance, Iberia has 3 flights from LHR to Madrid departing at 1830, 1850 and 1920. KLM^▸ (English name: Royal Dutch Airlines ) has 2 flights from LHR to Amsterdam departing at 2015 and 2025, on relatively small Embraer Jets. If they were able to find a larger aircraft, they could operate just 1 flight.

[Tim]

If we need a huge hub airport for the whole nation is the answer isn't Boris island (wrong side of London), Gatwick (wrong side of London) or Heathrow (too close to London) but somewhere NW of London between Didcott, Aylesbury and Thame.

If that is politically impossible, then the next best thing is an expanded Heathrow (with very strict environmental limits so that it only grows gradually and in step with planes becoming quieter and more efficient)  AND an expanded Gatwick AND the Heathwick rail link between the two AND a high speed rail network property integrated with air to remove the like of Manchester-London flights.  A combination of these four is less then perfect but would be an improvement on where we are today. 

[Thatcham Crossing]

simonw said:

placing a major airport hub for 70m passengers in between dozens of villages, small towns, M4, M25 and upwind of London means the financials costs will be ridiculous.

LHR already has around 70m pax per year. It continues to edge up slightly simply due to increased Load Factors and because on average the no. of seats on each aircraft is increasing, not because more flights are operating.

Aircraft are far far quieter than they have ever been - think 707's, Trident's, BAC 1-11's and the like for real noise. Today's latest aircraft (eg, 787, A380 and the just entering service A350) are incomparable really.
They have much better performance, ie, they climb more quickly so you experience the noise over a smaller footprint.
They use much less fuel and emit much less pollution/CO2 per passenger than those built and operated during the 60's and 70's.
They (in general) carry a lot more people, so less flights need to operate.

Steve Bray is right though that there are some anomalies and cases where scheduling could be cleverer, but there are many factors to consider, not least aircraft availability (as another example, one of those Iberia flights is a widebody/long haul A340, but I understand it's needed due to the cargo demand on the route - bear in mind that sometimes high value cargo - which widebodies can carry a lot more of - makes more money for the airlines than us "self-loading-freight").

I'm not pushing environmental issues aside, rather pointing out that they have been addressed (as realistically as they are ever going to be IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion)).

Forget Boris Island, airports need to be where the business/money/catchment area is, not on a marsh miles away in Essex.

Boris is also (for some strange reason, it can only also be political) against expansion at London City Airport. That is also approaching capacity as it becomes a victim of it's own success.

[eightf48544]

Nobody has answered my question, where are the people who are going to fill the 40,000 new jobs going to live and how will they get to work?

[Red Squirrel]

I completely agree that endlessly kicking the can down the road looks ridiculous, and that our politicians should stop being such bloody cowards and make a decision.

I just worry that the need to expand Heathrow is 'obvious' in the same way that the need to build bigger wider roads and better car parks is obvious - it's obvious if you think it needs to happen, but less obvious if you don't.

[Bmblbzzz]

Boris Island is a deliberate red herring, the far-out option placed by Boris to make LHR expansion the obvious, sensible choice.

[paul7575]

Boris Island is a deliberate red herring, the far-out option placed by Boris to make LHR expansion the obvious, sensible choice.

The Boris Island proposal seemed to consist of sketches of a big airport but never really answered the question of how you move all the businesses and warehouses etc already clustered around the existing airport right across to the other side of London.  Would they have just been expected to fend for themselves, or would places such as Slough have been moved to Kent as well?

Paul