Heathrow Third Runway Approved by Parliament
Jun 5, 2018, 6:13 am
#2
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,926
So, it's now down to a Commons vote.
"Controversial plans for a third runway at Heathrow Airport have been approved by ministers.
The government's economic sub-committee, chaired by Prime Minister Theresa May, backed the plans which were then approved by her full cabinet.
Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said it was a "historic moment".
Announcing £2.6bn in compensation for residents and noise abatement measures, he said it would only proceed if air quality obligations were met.
"The time for action is now," he told MPs, insisting the decision was being taken in the national interest and would benefit the whole of the UK.
The scheme, he insisted, would be entirely funded by private investment and while the expansion was a "number of years away", he believed it could be concluded by 2026.
MPs will be asked to vote on the expansion plans in the coming weeks."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44357580
"Controversial plans for a third runway at Heathrow Airport have been approved by ministers.
The government's economic sub-committee, chaired by Prime Minister Theresa May, backed the plans which were then approved by her full cabinet.
Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said it was a "historic moment".
Announcing £2.6bn in compensation for residents and noise abatement measures, he said it would only proceed if air quality obligations were met.
"The time for action is now," he told MPs, insisting the decision was being taken in the national interest and would benefit the whole of the UK.
The scheme, he insisted, would be entirely funded by private investment and while the expansion was a "number of years away", he believed it could be concluded by 2026.
MPs will be asked to vote on the expansion plans in the coming weeks."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44357580
Jun 5, 2018, 6:32 am
#3
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, ARN, HEL, ..... or MAN
Programs: BA GGL / GFL, Mucci Diamond!, HH Diamond, Radisson Premium, IHG Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 5,895
Hmmm I'm very pleased and think it's the right decision, but I wonder how long it will take until the first spade hits the ground.. I am expecting my regular flying days will be coming to an end before the third runway opens 
Jun 5, 2018, 6:40 am
#5
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: All over the place often South Wales and Lake District
Programs: BA Gold for Life Accor Platinum
Posts: 4,552
Personally I don't see why it had to be a decision between LHR and LGW. I think both should have expanded. 1 extra runway is nothing more than a plaster fix to a wound. It will slow the flow, but eventually more will be needed.
Jun 5, 2018, 6:45 am
#6
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 116
Legal challenges and the air pollution issue will make sure a spade doesn't get stuck in the ground before 2023. So 2030s before its operational
They should have approved Gatwick (aswell?), could have got that one up and running well before 2025
They should have approved Gatwick (aswell?), could have got that one up and running well before 2025
Jun 5, 2018, 7:16 am
#10
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brexile in ADB
Programs: BA, TK, HHonours, Le Club, Best Western Rewards
Posts: 7,067
Jun 5, 2018, 7:24 am
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,195
I'm only in favour of the additional runway
(a) if they restrict the extra slots available so the whole airport runs at 75-80% capacity (similar to I believe AMS and FRA) so that weather or a runway issue etc don't cause a total meltdown in flights.
(b) the new slots are allocated to particular routes and not to an airline so an airline couldn't start with LHR-XXX say it was failing and use the slot for LHR-ZZZ. It should go back into a pool for bids. Oh and these slots should belong to HAL and not the airline so they can't sell them.
As to possible challenges it depends on what sort of approval vote is given to MPs. If it just in principle and then there is a planning application etc then there will be challenges. If it us a specific act of parliament then it is harder to challenge in the courts. IIRC Crossrail was approved via an Act with only relatively small elements done via individial planning applications. Same is happening with HS2.
(a) if they restrict the extra slots available so the whole airport runs at 75-80% capacity (similar to I believe AMS and FRA) so that weather or a runway issue etc don't cause a total meltdown in flights.
(b) the new slots are allocated to particular routes and not to an airline so an airline couldn't start with LHR-XXX say it was failing and use the slot for LHR-ZZZ. It should go back into a pool for bids. Oh and these slots should belong to HAL and not the airline so they can't sell them.
As to possible challenges it depends on what sort of approval vote is given to MPs. If it just in principle and then there is a planning application etc then there will be challenges. If it us a specific act of parliament then it is harder to challenge in the courts. IIRC Crossrail was approved via an Act with only relatively small elements done via individial planning applications. Same is happening with HS2.
Jun 5, 2018, 7:27 am
#13
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,667
No we don't, same probably applies to AMS, BRU, CDG, MAN, EDI, GLA and probably quite a few more. Using small aircraft with high frequency is very inefficient, people would soon adapt if it was changed to say 5x daily but on much bigger aircraft. It would free up some slots
Jun 5, 2018, 7:35 am
#14
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Edi
Posts: 2,203
There’s a reason IAG’s share price is down 3% today.
Jun 5, 2018, 7:43 am
#15
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA GGL, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 910
I'm only in favour of the additional runway
(a) if they restrict the extra slots available so the whole airport runs at 75-80% capacity (similar to I believe AMS and FRA) so that weather or a runway issue etc don't cause a total meltdown in flights.
(b) the new slots are allocated to particular routes and not to an airline so an airline couldn't start with LHR-XXX say it was failing and use the slot for LHR-ZZZ. It should go back into a pool for bids. Oh and these slots should belong to HAL and not the airline so they can't sell them.
As to possible challenges it depends on what sort of approval vote is given to MPs. If it just in principle and then there is a planning application etc then there will be challenges. If it us a specific act of parliament then it is harder to challenge in the courts. IIRC Crossrail was approved via an Act with only relatively small elements done via individial planning applications. Same is happening with HS2.
(a) if they restrict the extra slots available so the whole airport runs at 75-80% capacity (similar to I believe AMS and FRA) so that weather or a runway issue etc don't cause a total meltdown in flights.
(b) the new slots are allocated to particular routes and not to an airline so an airline couldn't start with LHR-XXX say it was failing and use the slot for LHR-ZZZ. It should go back into a pool for bids. Oh and these slots should belong to HAL and not the airline so they can't sell them.
As to possible challenges it depends on what sort of approval vote is given to MPs. If it just in principle and then there is a planning application etc then there will be challenges. If it us a specific act of parliament then it is harder to challenge in the courts. IIRC Crossrail was approved via an Act with only relatively small elements done via individial planning applications. Same is happening with HS2.
In terms of planning/Acts of Parliament HS2 and Crossrail don't cause the impact on air quality and emissions that a third runway will. The government has repeatedly lost legal battles regarding it's failure to deliver air quality improvements from current levels.