TWCLAM

Personally I always favoured LGW on pretty much all of the criteria however realistically I think we always knew that LGW had a hand tied behind their backs from the beginning no matter what they did bid wise. It has always played 2nd fiddle to LHR and the Gvmnts choice showed that they were happy for it to stay this way.

If this hadn't been going on for several decades with successive Gvmnts of all colors refusing to deal with the issue ( as ALL 5 year focused politicians do as they care about how they will look in the next couple years rather than whats good for the country in the longer term - my personal IMHO) then i'd chastise them for not approving a 2nd at LGW as well but due to all the above I'm in no way shocked that they picked the, imho, wrong airport and took the incredibly short sighted 'sticking plaster' option rather than giving us the capacity needs that everyone knows we'll be needing sooner rather than later. I'll admit that LGW is my 'home' airport however I use LHR, LGW and if I really have to LTN & LGW being my nearest never even factored into my thoughts throughout the process.

Can't wait to see my taxes go up to pay for the bid that has holes in it's financing as big as the tunnel needed for the M25 is. Then again when they find corners were cut and nobody can use the new runway for 2 years after it opens in circa 2042 as they rebuild it after realising nobody factored in weight loads of aircraft or the pressure spikes caused on the hollowed out ground when gear hits the asphalt . As for the Gvmnt saying "stringent air quality checks....." blah blah blah. Well on the basis that they allowed LHR Management to move the goalposts for said things after their bid initially showed it would fail on those grounds well that parts just laughable.


I'm a BIG believer in increased capacity and the need for it I was just disappointed, although not surprised, that yet again a Gvmnt of the day has allowed short sightedness to win the day.

Camflyer

I've said it from the start but if it was down to me I would have given approval for a new runway and Heathrow and Gatwick and put a direct rail link between the two to put the capacity debate to bed for decades.

LGW could be delivered quicker and cheaper - even though there would still be problems with improving local road and rail connections - but that wouldn't take away the fact that LHR is full and that is where the extra capacity is needed by its economic hinterland. Expanding Gatwick alone would do nothing to help the huge number of businesses which are in the M4 corridor and Thames Valley because of the global connections offered from Heathrow.

Worcester

BOH

IIRC, to use Northolt also requires a runway re-alignment there too (so a full reconstruction, not just lengthen) as it would interfere with LHR approaches and therefore reduce overall capacity?

London_traveller

A couple of thousand years ago

Camflyer

Other airports are being allowed to add capacity, it's just that they don't need a new runway to do so. Stansted, Luton, Manchester and Birmingham will all be growing passenger numbers over the next few years.

Worcester

Day after they get permission
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44614352
Worth remembering that Ferrovial used an ilegal tax loophole to help finance the takeover of BAA.

Calum

​​​​​​
Again this comes down to what metric you use to come to these conclusions. I would say New York or Tokyo are higher on the list, that would be a purely based on GDP, area, size etc but I would not personally consider them top cities.

I'm sure we could run a whole thread on this but because I care more about getting a third runway, so I think this topic should be discontinued.

London_traveller

You're shutting down a debate because you don't like the consistent responses rebutting your claim that London is not a major world city? Nice

It's precisely because it is a major world city that the debate about runway capacity exists in the first place.

WorldLux

In a perfect world, LHR would be bulldozed and they'd build 4 parallel runway, 3 or 4, brand new midfield terminal, a high-speed rail link to the North and leave room for expansion.

Realistically, the approved runway will take several more years and lots of litigation before we may say planes land on it. There won't be any HSR link. Seeing how they couldn't even be bother to fund the HS2-HS1 link, thereby allowing trains to run the entire length of HS2 and HS1, I seriously doubt that they'll fund a HS2 spur to Heathrow or a rail link between LGW and LHR. I suspect that there are greater priority re: rail investment in London.

Worcester

The £18 billion is a colossal amount of money, Berlin built a whole airport for a third of the cost. So an entirely new airport in a far better position is not financially unrealistic.

KARFA

An interesting example to raise.....

London_traveller

On the point about LHR-LGW rail links, I think it's a shame that the Crossrail 2 plans for London don't extend to Gatwick on the southern part of the line. That way, although there would be an interchange (I presume at Tottenham Court Road), there would be a relatively easy and relatively fast rail connection between the two airports.

It would also make LGW easier to get to in its own right.

I guess full integration of transport just isn't a priority, otherwise some more basic integration would already be part of rail plans - for example, Crossrail at LCY would bring substantial benefits for properly integrated transport, but isn't happening despite the line passing by the airport.

Worcester

It's not without problems grant you, but I still maintain the point that the estimated cost of RW3 is too high and the costs will used as an excuse to increase fees charged to us.

DYKWIA

Understatement of the year!