Yes but history says that normally is not the end of it. It has traditionally been the trigger for the anti-mob to step up a gear. Think A34 Newbury Bypass, M3 Extension around Winchester, A30 dualling Honiton to Exeter.

You're letting your political biases get in the way I'm afraid. The last government did a massive amount into trying to get an integrated policy on expansion of air traffic capacity throughout the UK - starting off with various regional reviews (SERAS for the SE), going through a green and a white paper and advancing actual proposals.

Of course, if you are completely blinded by one party and one bad idea, and don't actually work in the industry, it's probably very easy to have not noticed any of this.

You might like to check out the DfT publication archive for 2002, if you want to inform yourself of that which you seem to be unaware in terms of how much work was put into the process of assessing air transport needs in the UK.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/site/archive/publications-archive

I wish the Tories would actually read this stuff instead of paying the exact same consultants to produce the exact same assessments all over again, which will ultimately say the same thing again :rolleyes:

Slaughter the birds, build a Thames Hub.

Nice video here:

www.halcrow.com/Thames-Hub/

I am not so sure that BA really want the third runway. Yes they might say in an interview that they are looking to expand. However, like Virgin the CEO's of our airliners seem to know how to get free publicity. I persoannly cant tell you who the CEO of certain UK companies are. However up pops Willie, Richard and even that O'leary guy gets involved.

However without the third runway they dont need to take risks. They dont need to expand their routes at the risk of markets which dont like them and wont work out.

If BA and even Virgin really want to expand they would have done so by now. They know, their computers tell them, where people start and end up. If the million of people who fly to LHR to go to the US are real, their computers will say.

So they could fly them to MAN and use capacity from MAN to take one flight a day to New York or MIA etc. This would free up more capacity and might even help people fly to these places. Some will only fly point to point.

This would give capacity now to the airlines and give them the routes needed. Nealy a million people fly via Germany to go to China.

There may be some truth in that. Of course a third runway would allow more competition as not all the extra slots created will go to BA....and it may well be the situation that proportionate lessly go to BA because of their already dominant LHR position. So a third runway would allow more flights for *A and Skyteam too, particularly on the lucrative NA routes where I'm sure DL and UA would add more rotations.

Many a CEO has publicly supported something, ie stated they welcome competition...but privately hoped the exact opposite happens @:-)

Question … surely it's stand capacity, rather than runway occupancy, that's the driving force?

With LHR's 2 rws operating at virtual max capacity, wouldn't the third one contribute to on-time arrivals, even during IrrOps?

Or … does the 3rd rw come with a new terminal, and more stands, thus perpetuating the current congestion, but with even more aircraft and pax involved?

3rd runway was meant to come with a small satellite terminal to the north, close to the runway. My understanding was that this would become the main locale for domestic movements, allowing O&D pax to leave directly from the satellite, but also connections into the CTA and T5.

But yes, a 3rd runway means a requirement to expand. The redevelopment of the CTA would probably have provided some of the better capacity though, but longer term, more space required.

The logical place for this terminal would be athwart the Heathrow Express tunnel, so platforms can be provided. However this would not only be an engineering challenge but also not able to be served by the Underground. I can imagine BAA coming up with rail access arrangements that favour the Express and stick one on the Underground. Would the Department for Transport care ? Probably not.

The third runway was meant to come with a sixth terminal with capacity for 35 million pax a year. The runway would have been used for simultaneous take offs and landings. The third runway and sixth terminal would have been the size of Gatwick.

OT: London voters: one mayoral candidate wants a 3rd runway at LHR
 

I recognise that this post is verging on OMNI/PR territory where it would be swamped among all the topics there. As it's relevant to BA, the majority user of LHR, I'd be grateful if it could have a brief sojourn in the BA forum.

More at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17740348

Manifesto at http://www.siobhanformayor.com/index.html

A liberal view at http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/04...nita-as-mayor/ : Ms Benita has already overtaken the LibDem candidate and is in 3rd place after Ken and Bonkers according to the bookies.

Brave lady. I wonder, however, how much clout the mayor's office has in terms of deciding whether to build a third runway? Certainly none if it goes against central government policy, I would suggest.

You're right, of course.

Nevertheless, a significant vote for her by people who may disagree with the Transport Secretary's NIMCBY (C for Constituents') policy could register. And she's more aware of airport needs and 60,000 jobs than Bonkers and his Island proposal.

I just want London to pick a mayor who pays his taxes.. :D

On transport I feel we need a policy for all airports in the UK to expand. Not just London. Whilst I support a third runway, we have been lucky that the recession happened. This has reduced air passengers and the need for more capacity. This is shown with the demise of BMI etc. If the UK had been growing with the right sort of growth we would be gridlocked by now.

I am not so sure the bike man Boris is wrong about his airport. I think in 2035 or whenever it would be built people will be saying we need that airport as well.

I like an underdog. The trouble is that Siobhan Benita has a lot of policy on side issues and no real policy for London.

London Mayor cannot do anything about a 3rd runway whatever her view.
Likewise, Boris cannot make Boris Island Airport happen.
Ken just wants every one not to travel I guess.

18 April: Splendid News, Further Evidence Coalition Rules Out Third Runway
 

Thankfully further evidence that the Government is standing by its decision not to entertain construction of a Third Runway at Heathrow:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-Heathrow.html


Theresa Villiers stated “The Coalition has always been clear that it doesn’t support a third runway at Heathrow - one of the very first acts as government was to confirm that,” the Transport Secretary said.

“The quality of life aspect of a third runway with up to 22,000 more flights over London every year would be massive and there’s no technological solution in sight to ensure planes become quiet enough, quickly enough to make this burden in any way tolerable. So we need another solution.”


This is the right decision, and paves the way (literally, I suppose) for expansion at Gatwick and supports the proposal for an intermodal hub in the Thames Estuary, alongside various other transport improvements which will open up the East of London as a viable residential and industrial corridor, in much the same way the Conservative government's past focus on London Docklands and the Liverpool Docks revitalised their communities from once moribund areas.

Excellent news!

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...Thames-008.jpg