Court of Appeal halts LHR third runway

Old Feb 27, 20, 9:30 am
  #61  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 637
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
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Our CO2 emissions have dropped by 34.2% since 1985, our GDP per head has increased 70.7% in the same period (ONS figures).

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/natio...ionsukevidence
Kgmm77 likes this.
Schind is offline  
Old Feb 27, 20, 12:45 pm
  #62  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Programs: plenty - ggl, ccr, etc, etc.
Posts: 1,704
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!
Sky news suggests its the company not the government that might appeal.
Will this save the environment? No - just more emissions from circling planes and the added environmental cost of taking two flights instead of one if youre forced to make a connection if demand still outstrips supply - especially as Amsterdam are looking at lifting their movement cap, CDG has plenty of room - as does Madrid.
strickerj likes this.
DFB_london is offline  
Old Feb 27, 20, 1:00 pm
  #63  
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 37
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
The good people of SE London are not exactly overjoyed with the constant overflying from LHR and LCY (whose expansion people now seem to be up in arms against). Its a hilly part of the city and the clearance is not exactly what the airports like to claim it is. Yours, resident of SE19 (and former NW1er).
David_Doyle likes this.
catscall is offline  
Old Feb 27, 20, 1:34 pm
  #64  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Via del Mar, Chile
Programs: FB Plat, ALL Silver, HH Silver
Posts: 163
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.
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.
strickerj and navylad like this.
Lawrious is offline  
Old Feb 27, 20, 2:22 pm
  #65  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: London
Programs: BAEC | qantas | IHG | Hilton Honors | Priority Pass | Nandos
Posts: 748
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.
Yes, but the number of movements would increase with a third runway though? So there could be a reduction in CO2 production from holding, but an increase from the extra overall movements. There also could be longer taxi times from a new northern runway to the existing terminals, so I'm guessing that the net result would be an increase.
peter h is offline  
Old Feb 27, 20, 2:24 pm
  #66  
V10
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Provincie Antwerpen, Vlaanderen, Belgi
Programs: MUCCI Gold
Posts: 2,510
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.
Anything saved here will be offset by increased numbers of flights as HAL seeks to maximise the return on its investment.

The best way to alleviate climate issues is to cut down on the existing number of flights, not facilitate more of them.
V10 is offline  
Old Feb 27, 20, 2:47 pm
  #67  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Programs: Regarded as total and utter snob amongst the BAEC community.
Posts: 971
Boris island II waiting in the wings?
icegirl is offline  
Old Feb 27, 20, 3:00 pm
  #68  
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Programs: All the usual suspects
Posts: 342
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).
If he hasn't died in a ditch first.

Does any other country tie itself up in such knots so regularly about major infrastructure projects? I remember talk about the third "Heathrow' airport when I was a child (more than 4 decades ago) and where it would be located, including, somewhat implausibly, Yorkshire. Unless Stansted has taken that title, I'm not sure it ever happened.
Soupdragon62 is offline  
Old Feb 27, 20, 3:01 pm
  #69  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: London
Programs: BAEC | qantas | IHG | Hilton Honors | Priority Pass | Nandos
Posts: 748
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'.
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.
pilot007 likes this.
peter h is offline  
Old Feb 27, 20, 3:10 pm
  #70  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: LHR/ATH
Programs: Amex Platinum, LH SEN (Gold), BA Bronze
Posts: 4,480
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.
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.
icegirl likes this.
ahmetdouas is offline  
Old Feb 27, 20, 3:22 pm
  #71  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: LHR Air Traffic Control
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 807
Did I miss something?
Heathrow Tower is offline  
Old Feb 27, 20, 3:39 pm
  #72  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: London
Programs: BAEC | qantas | IHG | Hilton Honors | Priority Pass | Nandos
Posts: 748
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.
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?
peter h is offline  
Old Feb 27, 20, 3:40 pm
  #73  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: London
Programs: BAEC | qantas | IHG | Hilton Honors | Priority Pass | Nandos
Posts: 748
Originally Posted by Heathrow Tower
Did I miss something?
Not really
Heathrow Tower and alex67500 like this.
peter h is offline  
Old Feb 27, 20, 3:47 pm
  #74  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: LHR/ATH
Programs: Amex Platinum, LH SEN (Gold), BA Bronze
Posts: 4,480
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?
It's not about financing necessarily, it is about will to get things done. LHR is very strategic, and the UK govt voted to pass a third runway, so money or no money the govt is definitely involved!

The money is easily there, 10's of billions in the scheme of things is nothing, its the hidden agendas that are backstabbing this from going ahead.
ahmetdouas is offline  
Old Feb 27, 20, 3:59 pm
  #75  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brexile in ADB
Programs: BA, TK, HHonours, Le Club, Best Western Rewards
Posts: 7,067
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.
Yes, its worth looking at. Built at huge at huge environmental cost, between that and the new motor way & bridge it has resulted it the felling of well over a million trees, the opening up of huge areas of previously green areas for development with most of the benefits of that going to supporters and associates of the AKP.

Officially 23 people were killed during construction. Unions start far higher numbers. What can not be disputed is that police forced labourers back to work.

The dangers of no accountability and massive corruption plain for all to see.
Worcester is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread