So...does this mean we can get R3 and T6 underway now?? :p

+2 ^

I think they did establish something they called "Eurohub" or some similar name. They ran an advertisement with a strapline of "Boomingham" when they were establishing this - it was around the same time as the famous Manhattan ads. IIRC BA ran flights to a good number of European capitals and secondary cities. I seem to remember going to Lyon and Munich on BA from Birmingham in the late 80s or early 90s - so it was a bigger operation than the usual CDG, FRA, BRU, AMS type capital cities.

Good to see the government is doing a U-turn on this. I still think a third runway at LHR is only a sticking plaster though and within just a few years of it opening the airport will again be maxed out.....and there is no spare land for R4 at LHR. Then the only option would then be a greenfield site.

I read somewhere this weekend that OSL is planning a third runway now - and their pax numbers are less than half LHR's. And HKG planning a new runway now too. The difference.....they were greenfield sites (ok, OSL was an existing military airfield), away from centres of population. Those countries bit the bullet so to speak and realised expanding an old airport close to centres of population is not the answer in the medium to long term.

But, a third runway at LHR is better than nothing so lets hope it goes ahead.

A 3rd runway (which would also require a sixth terminal) sounds like a good idea.

But even if the green light was given this year (highly unlikely!) it would take a decade to be operational.

A 3rd runway would only be a short term solution, and would instantly be full to capacity. It would still have the current night-flying restrictions.

I like the plans for a Thames Hub which Foster & Partners have put together; the funding for the airport would be easily possible, without destroying existing infrastructure and the transport links required to support such a scheme would open up an underserved part of the South East for homes and other economic activity, without requiring aircraft to overfly London:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesi...es-hub-project

http://www.cutedecision.com/wp-conte...ames-Hub-2.jpg

Conservative Party admits wrong on Heathrow
 

Excellent -- now we just need to wait for them to admit they are also wrong about inflation, taxation, fuel duty, minimum pricing for alcohol .................................................. ..............................................

Guess what, in the last decade, dozens of airports around the World have build 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th runways..........they decide and then they do it, whether greenfield or existing sites, they do it, they do not have 40 reviews, they do not ask every single person down to the bin man on multiple occasions, and they for the most part do not turn something as needed and vital into a POLITICAL FOOTBALL.

But even if the green light was given this year (highly unlikely!) it would take a decade to be operational.

ten? you are having a laugh ! it took BAA 5+ years just to get planning permission for T5 what with all the delays and the public enquiry. You think the people of Kent will just lay down and let an airport be build there??

A 3rd runway would only be a short term solution, and would instantly be full to capacity. It would still have the current night-flying restrictions.

Not if you kept the same number of slots it wouldn't. Use the 3rd runway to manage landings and take-offs to reduce circling etc and NOT for more flights. Heathrow needs headroom so that it is not operating at 99% capacity which is the cause of delays

I like the plans for a Thames Hub which Foster & Partners have put together; the funding for the airport would be easily possible, without destroying existing infrastructure and the transport links required to support such a scheme would open up an underserved part of the South East for homes and other economic activity, without requiring aircraft to overfly London:

How would funding be 'easily possible'??. Maybe (and thats a BIG maybe) for the airport itself but what about the funding for other infrastructure like roads and rail that allow people to get there and that an operator would expext the State to provide for? and that would need to be built before the airport was constructed

I don't think the compromise between expanding the number of slots and creating operational wiggle-room should be this one-sided.

I have to agree with this. Which is my main worry. We need more capacity now, not in ten years time. Which is why I think Birmingham should be used more as they have lots of unused capacity and the main infastructure needed. I think that the airlines need to think outside the box a little more, not have such tunnel vision.

Maybe BA, Virgin etc should move the halve the flights they are sending to the US from LHR and move them to either LGW or BHX. If its BHX then they will cut down on the fuel used to fly an extra hours flight

I am sure most people will say this post is silly. But how will the main UK hub get the routes that are needed in the short term. Also with the competition needed, not just BA flying everyone all the time.

As opposed to raving right whingers? :D <ducks>

Wrong.

Whilst there is a proportion of the Lib Dems against LHR expansion, this can also be applied to large number of members from both the Labour and Conservative parties.

I've spoken personally to a number of senior LD party members who I can assure you many are not against expansion.

Should I remind you what was contained in the 2010 Conservative Party manifesto?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...-dem-manifesto

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...y-7584591.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...manifesto.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...10.html#libdem

But it would help placate some of the opposition re noise and polution etc.

Of course the other limiting factor other than runway and terminal space is the ability of ATC to handle more flights.

OK so SOME extra slots could be allocated - but only a relativly small number - but they should to be allocated to new and developing markets on international routes (China, India, Brazil, Africa etc) rather than to alreeady well served destinations. And if the carrier ceases to operate the route they get given back for further reallocation and not for sale.

I'm well aware of what was offered by all of the three major UK political parties. ;)

My point was twofold:

1: the manifesto pledge was put forward also by the Conservatives
2: not everyone within all 3 parties are in agreement over the 3rd runway debacle. I've personally spoken to a number of people who are in the Cabinet about the issue. One should also not automatically assume all LD'er are against a 3rd runway.

Technically Labour was the only major party pushing the 3rd runway in the run up to the last general election.

Thats the title of this thread. Conservative party admits it was wrong on the airport. Technically they are all expect Labour right. We wont see another runway in the UK before the next election on the 7 May 2015.