Heathrow Airport expansion - proposal for third runway - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[Btline]

The coalition is on th everge of doing a gigantic U-Turn in a bulldozer in Sipson, West London as homes and graves are axed to make way for planes.

Is this the right decision? Do we even need more runways?

For me, it has to be Boris Island. We need a single hub airport, and it is wrong to have more planes flying over people's homes. As well as heathrow, you could close two of City/Gatwick/Luton/Stansted, freeing up much of the South East from constant noise.

[Chris from Nailsea]

The coalition is on th everge of doing a gigantic U-Turn in a bulldozer in Sipson, West London as homes and graves are axed to make way for planes.

I think you are exaggerating.

 

[Electric train]

Where I leave a third runway at Heathrow will no doubt generate a greater noise from planes, greater levels of road traffic, more business wanting to locate in the area.  However the reality of it is Heathow is the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)'s hub airport a key hub in Europe and a worldwide center for travel a lot of the UK's transport infrastructure and compaines has gravitated to Heathrow over the last 50 / 60 years there is no way this can be relocated cheaply to another place.

As part of the third runway HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) has to be built along with the western link to the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line), freight links should be built off of the GWML and Windsor / Reading line with companies like TNT, Royal Mail, FedEx encouraged to build rail linked hubs elsewhere in the UK.

[matt473]

How about none of the options? Why not develop plans for a long term high speed network in addition to HS^▸ (High Speed (short for HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) High Speed Services)) 1 and 2 reducing the need for domestic and short haul flights reducing the need for not only a new runway at Heathrow, but needs for increasing number of airports throughout the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) to a small number of hubs connected to regional transport hubs with High speed rail with local rail, bus and coach connections. Entirely feasible if only governments both locally and throughout Europe work together to achieve such an aim.

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

Its the old story - UK^▸ (United Kingdom) does not have an integrated longer term transportation policy. Heathrow is clearly too close to densely occupied areas and a third runway would just make environmental conditions worse for any one living near to a low level flight path. Gatwick is further out in the country and much of the residential development around Gatwick is airport related. Build a second runway there but the government has given reassurance in the past that it would not permit this.
Just look at France where ytansportation has been treated as a public service. The French government many years ago decided that Orly, which was then the main Paris airport was inadequate and authorised the building of CDG. Tis is well out in the country but has fast RER trains to central Paris, the line being extended, of course, to CDG as part of the master plan. Then look at French rail and the steady development of TGV^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse) lines across the country. The EU^» (European Union - about) now requires competion but look at how slowly that is progressing in France with SNCF^▸ (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais - French National Railways) still the major train company. There again, the French look after their own interests before European wide. That's enough of my moan.

[welshman]

Why are all these people flying about wasting fuel anyway?

I've managed quite happily without being on an aeroplane since 1969.

And I REALLY don't understand why there's no tax on aviation fuel.

Given the typical 4 gallons per mile fuel consumption, we could clear the budget deficit fairly quickly if aviation fuel was taxed like road fuel. 

[Rhydgaled]

Why are all these people flying about wasting fuel anyway?

I've managed quite happily without being on an aeroplane since 1969.

And I REALLY don't understand why there's no tax on aviation fuel.

Given the typical 4 gallons per mile fuel consumption, we could clear the budget deficit fairly quickly if aviation fuel was taxed like road fuel. 

Agreed, aviation fuel should be taxed, at least as much as road fuel. Unfortunatly there is an international agreement (I have a feeling it's called 'The Chicago Convention' but I'm probably wrong) forbiding it, though perhaps the government should try to see if they can tax fuel for domestic flights. If aviation was taxed to an extent that reflects the huge enviromental damage it causes, would there be a need for even the number of runways/airports we have now?

[Steve Bray]

Definitely. I'd start building it tomorrow. It's one of the current embarrassments we have in this country. It should have been acted on years ago. Every day for about 16 or 17 hours we have plane after plane circling over the home counties awaiting clearance to begin a final approach, something which a 3rd runway would solve. I see the aircraft overhead every morning where I live and I work in south-west London on the flightpath into LHR. The facts are that the airlines love Heathrow; in the main, they are only interested in Heathrow and they cannot get enough of it. Stansted, which was a bad decision in my opinion, has hardly ever attracted serious airlines in 25 years. American Airlines tried a transatlantic service from there, but that didn't work out (OK - it was around 9/11 time). Gatwick's runway is limited (as is its expansion) so that restricts some fully laden aircraft. So it has to be Heathrow. The trouble is, in this country, we love protests and appeals and even if a third runway was agreed tomorrow, it would probably be 10 years or more before it opened.  

[Btline]

It is worth noting that any new runway would be HALF SIZE - so full size aircraft wouldn't be able to use it.

Unsurprisingly, the winner of the poll so far (for airport expansion) is Boris Island. Work on this needs to start tomorrow. How can people who say they want a new runway? It will blight thousands more lives! Imagine sitting in the garden and having a 747 come over at 1000ft every 90 secs!

The same number of people say no to expansion - do we want more planes pollute the air? I still believe building a new hub airport in the Thames and then shutting the others to get the planes over the sea/Thames and off the Home Counties.

[eightf48544]

I am surprised UJKIP hasn't consider CDG as a London Airport you coulds have the palnes from all the dodgy countries going in there with UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Border agency checking before they catch Eurostar. Would cut down illegal immigration and land the French with all the undesirables a win win for the UK.

[SapperPsmith]

Interesting letter in the DTel yesterday - suggested existing site could be progressivly redeveloped to create three full size runways - it would cost a fortunue but could solve the problem without expanding the site.  I am sure those affected by noise would still object.

[Super Guard]

There was interesting commentary in The Times yesterday from a journalist who lives 15 miles from Heathrow under the flight-path, who was originally campaigning against the third runway.  She now believes it is a good thing, given the economic position that London has, and unless better flight connections are provided for the future through Heathrow, then other world cities will benefit from companies doing more trade elsewhere, as no major airline is going to want to add additional capacity to Stanstead, if Heathrow is full.

I cannot post the article as it is behind the "Murdoch-Wall".

As for the "We should tax aviation fuel brigade..."

British air passengers are already the most heavily taxed in the world: on average, they pay almost nine times more duty than their European counterparts. In fact, the Treasury will collect almost twice as much in passenger taxes this year (^2.2 billion) as all other European countries combined (^1.17 billion), according to new research published by the Fair Tax on Flying alliance, a group of more than 30 travel organisations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/air-passenger-duty/8945430/Air-Passenger-Duty-a-tax-on-all-your-dreams.html

I am sure your average hard-pressed and outraged commuter is looking forward to some DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) bright-spark dreaming up "Rail Passenger Duty" 

Also Boris Island will never happen, as the Private Sector will not pay for it, whereas they will pay for the Heathrow 3rd Runway.

[Btline]

The problem with 3 runways is that one has to be alternated.
A new 4 runway airport could have 2 for take offs (i.e. 1 takeoff per minute) and 2 for landings (1 per minute).
With 3 runways, because planes have to be separated -you can't have planes landing at parallel runways unless they are a minute apart- you don't get a 50% increase in flights. It's also likely that it will only be used for take offs West or landings to East, to avoid flying over the capital. This degrades capacity more.

[SapperPsmith]

The problem with 3 runways is that one has to be alternated.
A new 4 runway airport could have 2 for take offs (i.e. 1 takeoff per minute) and 2 for landings (1 per minute).
With 3 runways, because planes have to be separated -you can't have planes landing at parallel runways unless they are a minute apart- you don't get a 50% increase in flights. It's also likely that it will only be used for take offs West or landings to East, to avoid flying over the capital. This degrades capacity more.

Works at Gatwick

[Btline]

Gatwick has one (operational) runway, not three.