Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

Heathrow Third Runway Approved by Parliament

Heathrow Third Runway Approved by Parliament

Old Jun 5, 18, 6:58 am
  #1  
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 12,748
Heathrow Third Runway Approved by Parliament

The Third Runway is APPROVED!
Tobias-UK is offline  
Old Jun 5, 18, 7:13 am
  #2  
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 12,748
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
Tobias-UK is offline  
Old Jun 5, 18, 7:32 am
  #3  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, ARN, HEL, ..... or MAN
Programs: BA GFL / GGL, Mucci Silver, HH Diamond, Radisson Gold, Hertz Gold 5*
Posts: 4,408
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
wrp96 likes this.
ThatT1Feeling is offline  
Old Jun 5, 18, 7:37 am
  #4  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Berlin, Germany; Toronto, Canada; and SW Florida, USA
Programs: UA 1K, BA Gold, Hyatt Globalist, and assorted others
Posts: 24,595
About time.
crazyarmadillo likes this.
LondonElite is offline  
Old Jun 5, 18, 7:40 am
  #5  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: All over the place often South Wales and Lake District
Programs: BA Gold for Life
Posts: 4,138
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.
itsmeitisss is offline  
Old Jun 5, 18, 7:45 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 81
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
Swissroll is offline  
Old Jun 5, 18, 7:57 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Programs: BA GCH
Posts: 88
Do we really need >37 flights per day between LHR and say, DUB (EI/BA Wednesday, 18 EI, 19 BA) often multiple flights minutes apart, using small A319/A320/737?

There needs to be better joint up thinking...
roarss is offline  
Old Jun 5, 18, 8:10 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: London UK
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 24
"failing grayling" will never get this done.
Betawax is offline  
Old Jun 5, 18, 8:14 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Glasgow, UK
Posts: 10
I wonder how much IAG will get when Waterside gets CPO'd...
Dilettante is offline  
Old Jun 5, 18, 8:16 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brexile in ADB
Programs: BA, TK, HHonours, Le Club, Best Western Rewards
Posts: 6,252
Originally Posted by Dilettante View Post
I wonder how much IAG will get when Waterside gets CPO'd...
Not sure if it applies to commercial property but according to the BBC market rate +25%
Worcester is offline  
Old Jun 5, 18, 8:21 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: UK
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by Worcester View Post
Not sure if it applies to commercial property but according to the BBC market rate +25%
So about £50 for the land and £500 million for the staff Starbucks concession...
Petrus, wrp96, memesweeper and 1 others like this.
tinkicker is offline  
Old Jun 5, 18, 8:24 am
  #12  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Silver / VS /IHG Spire & Ambassador
Posts: 11,464
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.
kaka and :D! like this.
UKtravelbear is offline  
Old Jun 5, 18, 8:27 am
  #13  
BOH
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 7,097
Originally Posted by roarss View Post
Do we really need >37 flights per day between LHR and say, DUB (EI/BA Wednesday, 18 EI, 19 BA) often multiple flights minutes apart, using small A319/A320/737?

There needs to be better joint up thinking...
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
BOH is offline  
Old Jun 5, 18, 8:35 am
  #14  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Scotland/Canada/HK
Programs: The 4am BP pitstop club
Posts: 2,177
Originally Posted by BOH View Post
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
If BA suddenly starting using LH aircraft on the important SH routes, they’d have an abundance of slots they would be unable to use which would eventually lead to competition which we all know is BA’s worst nightmare.

There’s a reason IAG’s share price is down 3% today.
rufflesinc and Worcester like this.
Calum is offline  
Old Jun 5, 18, 8:43 am
  #15  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA GGL, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 737
Originally Posted by UKtravelbear View Post
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.
For (a) I believe that to be wishful thinking. As with any investment HAL will be keen to sweat all their assets as hard as possible. The promise of 6.5-7 hours closure overnight will be discarded with very quickly also.

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.
David_Doyle is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: