Originally Posted by ahmetdouas

The UK needs to be open to business in a post Brexit world, and creating bureaucracy to hide under the environmentalist flag is not beneficial to anyone

Originally Posted by taranty

This is spot on. As noted in the summary, all the Court can look at here is (essentially) whether the process has been followed correctly. Here, said process requires an explanation of how the policy decision has considered the requirements of Government policy on climate change. That explanation was missing, thus the relevant process has not been followed correctly. There could probably have just been a couple of paragraphs saying (this is an example, not a statement of fact so not looking to debate the accuracy of it!) "it's compatible with climate change policy because the additional aircraft are more efficient, holding and taxi times which waste fuel will be reduced and we'll also plant 8,000,000 trees so overall it's carbon neutral" and all would likely have been fine. The Court itself has said:


On that point, Government not appealing is likely because they don't need to. The Court also said, expanding on the final sentence above:


To me that reads as though once the Secretary of State has revised the ANPS to include the climate change policy consideration requirement it's then good to go. The decision here is not saying no third runway, it's saying no third runway until you go away and do a bit more work on the ANPS. At which point, they can press on unless there is then another challenge that the requirement still hasn't been met. There's therefore not much point appealing, just get on and revise the ANPS instead as instructed by the Court. I wouldn't read anything at all into the decision not to appeal as regards Government appetite for a third runway. If they don't bother revising the ANPS as instructed though then it's a very different matter!

Originally Posted by contrails7

Let's be honest that is all due to the power and influence of the wealthy residents of South West London. I find it difficult to believe that if LHR were situated in, say, south-east London we wouldn't have had a third runway 5 times over by now. It's just ironic that statistically it is these same SW residents who then fly most, whether for business or pleasure. But then they are also best positioned (financially) to pay the higher fares that must result from artificially limiting capacity in the face of growing demand. I'm sorry but to me (given that LHR has been around and expanding for longer than most people would have been resident in SW London) this is the apogee of nimbyism

In a further irony BA are another winner as they now maintain a perpetual lock on their relatively dominant position at LHR. No wonder they have been a recent vocal critic of the whole project

Originally Posted by Misco60

Why? Many countries manage very well with airports that are not amongst the world's largest, and the UK can now take the moral high ground about putting environment before the airline lobby.

Originally Posted by Lawrious

The irony is though that a third runway could potentially alleviate climate issues. Heathrow's airspace is heavily congested considering you have to wait for up to ~20 minutes in a holding pattern on occasion. Also, the ground traffic is appalling. Burning fuel in the ground for well over 30 minutes at times.

A third runway, if built to plans, would have helped to reduce unnecessary burning/wastage of fuel and production of CO2.

Originally Posted by Lawrious

The irony is though that a third runway could potentially alleviate climate issues. Heathrow's airspace is heavily congested considering you have to wait for up to ~20 minutes in a holding pattern on occasion. Also, the ground traffic is appalling. Burning fuel in the ground for well over 30 minutes at times.

A third runway, if built to plans, would have helped to reduce unnecessary burning/wastage of fuel and production of CO2.

Originally Posted by Swanhunter

Global Britain 😂😂

Will be fascinating to see how Johnson approaches this. IIRC he was supposed to lie down in front of the diggers to stop the 3rd runway? Will he stop it permanently (if Cummings allows him, of course).

Originally Posted by ahmetdouas

It's not that, it's the excuse of another runway harming the environment when it really doesn't. UK's carbon footprint is tiny in the global scheme of things, and this will cost the government a lot of lost revenue, so everyone will suffer in a worse off economy, even the environmentalists.

You can take many other measures to stem the effect of another runway to become carbon neutral.

The UK needs to be open to business in a post Brexit world, and creating bureaucracy to hide under the environmentalist flag is not beneficial to anyone, not to mention the cost to the taxpayer of this whole 'dog and pony show'.

Originally Posted by peter h

Not sure what Brexit has to do with it, isn't it capitalism that's at the core? BAA/HAL want to make more money through more aircraft movements and more passengers through their terminals and duty free stores. I've no problem with that, but there needs to be some government/regulatory control so they can't ride roughshod over 'UK's tiny carbon footprint'. (paraphrased)

Do you think that the UK should just go ahead and do absolutely anything to be 'open to business'? That sounds like how China has got itself environmentally where it is now. And don't forget that the Tories were opposed to the expansion in 2010 and the opinion of the MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip is (or was) well known. So the Government Cummings backing isn't guaranteed.

Originally Posted by ahmetdouas

Look at IST, brand new huge airport in a few years. That's what I expect, at 98% capacity it is obvious that the new runway is needed, get on with it!
When I was in the US, I got the impression that they were more open to business than UK and Europe, and the UK cannot afford to be complacent in a globalising world.

Originally Posted by Heathrow Tower

Did I miss something?

Originally Posted by peter h

Okay, but wasn't IST paid for by the Turkish government and now they charge their 'tenants' to use it? As far as I know, UK Gov has no financial interest in LHR operations, so why would they want to get involved?
Isn't it it the difference between state control and capitalism?

Originally Posted by ahmetdouas

Look at IST, brand new huge airport in a few years. That's what I expect, at 98% capacity it is obvious that the new runway is needed, get on with it!
When I was in the US, I got the impression that they were more open to business than UK and Europe, and the UK cannot afford to be complacent in a globalising world.