:D

:D

:D

Outrageous though it may seem, people have an affinity to where they live, and have chosen to live, and don't want to be forced to move... I'd be very interested to know what percentage of zealous pro Heathrow expansionists in this thread live within 20 miles of Heathrow...

Agreed, but there is no further scope for expansion at LHR. Assuming that IAG still desires to expand, it can only do this at it's other major hubs of MAD and now DUB. IAG wouldn't necessarily care if it's expanded business came from IB, EI or even VY. Only the quality and extent of destinations from the UK as well as the UK economy would suffer.

An obvious choice of politics first and common sense second from the UK government.

I know, just read that one back...call it a Freudian slip :p

HKers love to moan about anything the government does because it gives them an opportunity to blame the mainland. The pace of construction is relentless but its in the culture to line your pockets in the process.

Unless I've missed something, it's the Conservative Party who have been consistently opposed to the third runway.

Labour legislated for a third runway way back in 2009. The Conservatives ran their 2010 campaign against this policy and hence it didn't happen. Labour policy continues to be in favour of a third runway with the support of all the major unions.

It's Conservative nimbyism which is causing this absurd delay.

Amazing what riches political dogma and self interest brings, until that is, your parliamentary seat is at risk.

An interesting read. Can't help feeling it's going to end up someway off the mark though!

I do. I moved here knowing Heathrow is around the corner, I live under the flightpath, and I still want Heathrow to expand.

It annoys me that the small minority of objectors, half of which are banking on house price increases, tries to pretend that no one living nearby could possibly want airport expansion.

Most of Slough would disagree. But clearly anyone that doesn't live within the M25 doesn't count and is never consulted, because it's a Labour council...

To be fair, is there anywhere in the UK that you could build an airport/ runway without people objecting? Unfortunately if people want a stable democratic society you have to accept that people will try to stop things they don't like. It may not seem like it but the politicians only reflect the perceived public mood as they would be out of a job otherwise. It would be very interesting to ask on here if anyone couldn't care less about the environment. I suspect no one would own up to it and this is where the environmental campainers have got us.

I'm afraid this shows the guy up as a fool. BA's utter dominance at LHR means they don't want to see an increase in competition at an airport where they've taken away their investment, which is what would happen if there was further expansion at LGW. Especially as BA's strategy has been to dominate in a LHR hub over and above operations at LGW. They're now the poor relation to EasyJet at LGW... thanks to the competition. A third LHR runway won't liberalise the market in the same way - BA will still be dominant and have a hold on slots.

The reality is LHR simply won't happen. It doesn't matter what side the London Mayoral elections the Tory government shift this to, David Cameron won't back a third runway after so publicly stating his 'no if's, no buts' objection. And Boris doesn't want it. And Zac doesn't want it.

LGW expansion - plus - further expansion at LCY to accommodate larger aircraft - would be a sensible approach that's actually workable in the next ten years.

And me. Let's crack on and get it built. It's going to take 10 years, a lot can change in that time anyway.

This. The IoD are talking about solutions by 2020. The public inquiry won't have started by 2020! Much less opposition at LGW makes it a more implementable solution as well.

We all know boris island is the only great long term option.

An eminently sensible idea for the government, in considering a 2nd runway at LGW, is to ensure the Crossrail 2 proposals are amended/expanded, to integrate with LGW. One better: integrate the West London branch of Crossrail 2 into LHR, to provide something close to "Heathwick" - or at the very least, a seamless rail connection between the two airports.

Now *that* would really tilt the balance of opinion (IMHO).

We are generally frequent travellers on here and very few want to connect between terminals at LHR if we can help it - and yet you think even with a fast rail link people will want to conenct between LGW and LHR much more regularly?

If there was a 20 minute high speed nonstop train, and luggage could be through checked from one airport to the other, it would be probably be tolerable (even better if the connection could be post security, but that's not really possible, but maybe an actual fast track for train passengers). And if the airlines were streamlined more for non-UK carriers (eg all of SkyTeam at Gatwick, all of star alliance at heathrow), then it could be made to work. Of course then LTN and STN would complain that they need the same train connectivity.

I don't see how this would be less expensive or easier than a runway at LHR, given the distance that would be needed for a train line. I assume there are no other viable locations for a third runway within 5-10 miles of LHR that might have less political resistance, and/or no new flight corridor options that have reduce the noise impact on the nearby residents.

I've always wondered why the Heathwick idea wasn't allowed to move further ahead. Give LGW a second runway, which seems reasonably uncontroversial as no one has their house demolished. Build a high speed link directly between the two, airside if possible, which is also reasonably uncontroversial. A high speed train would do the joruney in 15 mins and a maglev train could do it in less than 10. As long as trains left every 5 mins or so it wouldn't be inconvenient. I've spent much longer than that getting between terminals at LHR! I don't see why this was ruled out as an option...

RAF Northolt has two runways about six miles from LHR (they even have IATA code NHT)

Some people have suggested that RAF Northolt's runways be given over to Heathrow with some sort of a people mover between them. There is probably no feasible way to construct a taxiway between them though so it would not be that sensible, but if you had a dedicated Sky Team or Star terminal up there, then there would not be a huge number of aircraft movements. The RAF could probably be pacified if they were given a shiny new base elsewhere. They could keep a small operation at Northolt for any essential operations they really want to base next to London.

Whether from an air traffic control perspective it could be done is another matter.

But actually from a political perspective, it would surely be the easiest solution. Presumably though someone has said "no that cannot be allowed" for some national security reason.

Northolt and Heathrow are about 8 miles apart. That would have to be quite some taxiway! Even the infamous 18R/36L runway at AMS is only 3-4km taxi from the D gates.

Let them fly between them if they really need to juggle aircraft between the terminals. ;)

BA threatens to move abroad if Heathrow runway goes ahead
 

Now this is interesting

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-12-11/b...ay-goes-ahead/

Sounds like they are playing hardball now...

Indeed, Willie Walsh has been dropping this hint for some time now. I get the sense he is simply fed up with successive UK governments' inability to do anything but dither on this and is looking elsewhere for growing his company.

Read it again ;)

WW wants more dithering. He doesn't want a new runway at LHR, he doesn't want the cost of the expansion to fall on BA. He likes having an oligopoly at LHR.

I don't think the headline covers quite what he said. But he did sound exasperated with the UK government.

David Cameron and the Conservative Government are not coming out of this pusillanimous decision with any credit at all. Forget the environmental issues to be checked (once more), it is purely political and a decision to go for LHR would cause internal splits as bad as anything Jeremy Corbin's party are presently experience. If LGW gets the green light we get two runways only and the problems of London's major airport operations being divided and not too convenient. There are no practical connections between the two possible.
I never thought I would come around to this but the only way out of the impasse is Boris Island or an equivalent and to hell with the cost, as far as the politicians are concerned anyway.

Does anyone really think that Heathrow would ever expand?

Governments (be it Conservative or Labour) have short term vision.....5 years and re-election. Even if the Conservatives said yea to the expansion.....what is the guarantee that a Labour government in 2025 (no chance with 2020 with Corbyn) would continue building.

I even believe that UK will waste money on HS2 and we will end up playing ping pong between Yea or Nay.

Surely the 30 minute saving [or whatever it is] on that rail journey is infinitely more important than having the UK's major airport functioning effectively?

/sarcasm ;)

I'll have to claim "not in my back yard" for that suggestion as I now live 3/4 mile from the airfield. :D

They have a bit of work to do first too: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...l-aero-418094/

If it were to become part of Heathrow they should have an underground airside link for both passengers and baggage. Current Journey time from Ruislip Gardens (closest tube) is an hour on public transport and involves changing to a bus / 3 tube trains.

What keeps disappointing me is how political such major infrastructure improvements are in UK. For the better of the country, the government needs to outsource such decisions to independent panels so delays and bickering does not boil down to political point scoring. But when was the last time this government or the previous one did something sensible...

That's exactly what the Davies Commission was supposed to be for! So much good that's done... :rolleyes:

HS2's primary benefit is to provide relief to over-capacity routes between London and the Midlands/North. The time savings are a secondary benefit to the capacity issue.

Back OT: it doesn't matter if the government tried to 'outsource' the airport capacity decision, it will always come back to the government of the day to make the decision in the end.

The more I think of it, the more I'm wedded to the idea of Gatwick expansion, plus, a southern extension of Crossrail 2 to LGW, to provide a decent, fast connection.

I'm still a bit unsure what BA/IAG support. They don't want LHR expansion nor seemingly support LGW expansion? Anyone would think they want to maintain their monopoly position..

Pah ... I lived happily for 5 years just 300 yards NE of the end of RW 25 (1 Trenchard Avenue) :D

A dedicated fast bus route using the A40/M25 might work, although God knows how that could be done given the traffic flows in that area! Anyway, the existing 07/25 is, IMO a complete non-starter as the report implies ...
IMO, the only possible option for using NHT is a completely new runway '28/10', flattening a large swathe of housing just east of the airfield, and that isn't going to happen either!! :D

http://i319.photobucket.com/albums/m...09at173309.png

Somewhat. The comission's decision still came back to government to give thumbs up or down to and that is the problem. It should have been set up so that the last say does not rest with the government but with the commission. The government should not be allowed to block such a decision, but apparently Mr Cameron and Co know better.

Based on the posturing, I would summarize it as they obviously only support expansion if it's in their financial best interests. They'll want at least the same percentage of total slots they have today, otherwise why are they disproportionately funding expansion for their competition.

You missed my house. We leave to the west of the airfield.

Like it or not, Mr Cameron and Co. are elected by democratic process. If decisions such as this were made by unelected bodies it would undermine the notion of democratic accountability. As I have stated previously, sometimes democracy does not work in your favour, but what is a credible alternative?

But how can you trust politicians who are only interested in political gains for themselves and their party and will do and say whatever scores them points to make decisions for the good of the country? While such bodies are unelected, they are chosen by elected politicians, so the process is not entirely undemocratic. Politicians would still be accountable, but they keep proving time and time again that we cannot trust them to make decisions that benefit the many even if at cost to the few.

Whilst not defending politicians here, being interested in political gains means the same as trying to get re-elected which in turn means appealing to the electorate. If there was a huge swathe of the electorate demanding Heathrow expansion, we would see a very different view from the government. Much as I would like to see airport expansion, I accept it is not vey high on most people's list of priorities. Busnesses are pushing for it because of their own self interest but for the majority the economic argument is not that appealing.
In addition, the environmental lobby have played a bit of a blinder over the last forty or so years by getting their message over to the young from an early age. We are now at the point where it is difficult to persuade younger people to support these projects without them raising environmental concerns.

I believe WW was quoted as saying "party politics take precedence over what is best for the British economy" and judging by this saga, it is difficult to disagree with that assertion.