its things like this that make me sick

Would you care to make your comment useful by qualifying it, please?

what?

*sigh* That was a polite way of saying that your comment doesn't contribute to the thread. What about that makes you "sick"?

Err....

why dont you use your brain and read my previous comments

The lack of any will in this country to improve our aviation infrastructure is what makes me sick

Well we kicked out the party which had the will, and elected two parties which don't have the will. And now, one of those parties is being lobbied hard, but rather than actually use anything the last party did, they'll take us back about 10 years to the review stage again, because owing to politics, they cannot actually give any credit to the Labour white paper which was actually a really rather comprehensive piece of work. It's better to spend millions of taxpayer money repeating the work than to admit that they have changed their minds on what aviation in the UK actually needs.

So by the time they finish that review, parliament will have changed again.... and so on ad infinitum :(

Incorrect.

In a typical U-turn, the Labour Party withdrew its support for expansion at Heathrow in October 2011:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...rd-runway.html

I doubt they've have had the mettle to carry on with their supposed policy of a disastrous third runway at LHR had they won, especially given the fact that yet again they handed over a bankrupt country due to profligacy and overspending while in power.

Interim expansion at Gatwick to provide additional runway capacity immediately the moratorium ends in 2019, better use of existing capacity at LHR until then, and a strategic plan to develop transport links to the East and through London to deliver a Thams Hub by 2030 is what is required:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...02_634x360.jpg

Couple of points.

Northolt is really a non-starter, the land area is too small and surrounded by development. The existing runways are not usable due to their direction (operations already have to be co-ordinated with Heathrow, only the very low usage allows this) and a new one wold be required parallel with Heathrow's. Any "rail link" between the two would be a real challenge, it would cost a fortune, I can't see any logical corridor for it, and the levels of usage would make it just not cost-effective. If all you are going to have is a new runway, you may as well build it on land that Heathrow already own.

Apart from the runway, considerable attention needs to be given to ground facilities, there still needs to be more aircraft parking stands and gates - not only to give some reserve capacity, only last week on a perfectly normal dayat T5 we were on gate A10 (ie the bus gate) again. This is now the last stage of gate construction at T5 has been completed.

It was correct at the time that that party was kicked out of government.

The subsequent policy U-turn may be interpreted in various different ways - not least of which is the possibility that the current government may yet have to revert to the planned third runway at LHR, whereupon that party will now be in a policy position to oppose. (I make no comment about the credibility of any such opposition.)

Agreed. It is so sad how this country no longer has the will to make things happen without endless studies, consultations, more studies, delays, yet more studies.

To give some idea of how bad it has become, the enquiry for T5 took about 5 years IIRC - this for a new terminal that was to be built pretty much entirely within the existing LHR boundary with so significant (if any) increase in aircraft movements. Was hardly in an area of outstanding natural beauty either!

Personally I think some decisions must sometimes be taken when it is clear it is overwhelmingly in the national interest to improve something. If this needs a premium of say 50% to be paid to existing land and home owners above market value to expedite things under compulsory purchase then that would be a small price to pay.

When I try and put myself in the shoes of the residents of Sipson and think what would I do if faced with R3 I conclude that if I was paid a good healthy premium over what my house is currently worth I would probably take it. Particularly if it meant I could trade up in house size. Now not everyone is a home owner but I think if something is in the national interest we need a mechanism of encouragement to make it just too good to refuse. After all, in the grand scheme of the huge costs of a scheme (and costs to the economy of just standing still) it would be very small extra price to pay.

Obstructing progress on "environmental grounds" has become a national pastime in the UK. But some things are just too important for the country and economy as a whole to get tied up in endless wrangles with just one or two stubborn people to endlessly delay things...just because they can.

There, I feel better now :)

BAA haven't helped things over time by ineptness with their public relations. Of course a few years ago they were fixated on increasing their short-term asset value so they could flog the whole lot off to Ferrovial for a vast sum and nothing else mattered. That might be fine if they had been just a regular commercial company subject to normal commercial pressures, but they weren't - they were the custodians of a key piece of national infrastructure.

For example, the cross-runway 23L was closed a few years ago, for no other reason than to give some extra parking stands at Terminal 4. If the runway now proposed had been presented then not as a NEW Runway or an EXTRA runway (sound bad) but just as a runway relocation of the existing third runway then many of the population would not have got nearly so worked up about it. And if they presented it as a means to increase the "domestic services which in recent years have been squeezed out", with some ring-fencing of a number of the extra slots for domestic operations, they would have got the support of many of the non-London MPs (who in any event are significant users of the domestics from Heahtrow).

You're almost right ... IMO Ithere is enough real-estate, as shown in my screen-shot. Have a really good look, and see that there's room for a New 10,000 ft runway with minimal bulldozing of low-grade housing. Compare with the bulldozing need for LHR, with the loss of Simpson. And I could envisage space for a terminal and airraft parking ... Just.

An elevated rail link is no big deal ... And could benefit the West Drayton business park on the way to LHR.

As others have noted, this is a National issue. Frankly, I would argue for LHR to be Nationalised. It's too important to be left in the hands of a shopping Mall operator.

I do think this is one example of privatisation gone wrong. Does it need to be nationalised though? Why dont the airlines own the airport. That way they would soon understand that you need to have people moving quickly around the airport, and more capacity of how much they needed.

I dont like the pics of T5 on another thread. Just looking at them gives me more chest pains.

Is that Homer, Marge or Maggie? :D I think you mean Sipson ;)