Isn't it within the prerogative of central Government to tell W. Sussex it's gonna get a second runway, whether it likes it or not? Anyway, IIRC the deal ends fairly soon so it might not be that much of an issue given how long the T5 planning / public enquiry process took.

Why? There are plenty of examples of unpleasant things being tossed over borders because people don't want to deal with them - have you been to New Jersey recently? How about nations that buy nuclear power from their neighbours, which IIRC includes the UK? Plus the distance / travel time from Calais is no worse than it would be from some English cities given the lack of UK investment in high speed rail - at least this would use the one track the UK actually has!

It would solve many problems....

You're going to be very popular with a certain Bearded airline owner if that one went through! :D

Of course capacity can be expanded at LHR by removing curfews, allowing mixed operations, banning regional jets, improve ATC to allow more landings per hour. These measures would be helpful but only for the short term. After a year or 2 after airlines have added masses of capacity that has been backfilled since the 20th century we are back at square one.

It is easy to say expand Gatters or Stany but they have Nimby's who are annoying and simply customers and airlines and other market conditions would not move the London hub from LHR to another airport, the only way STN would be the hub is if LHR and LGW were shut down.

I fully agree that adjustments like mixed ops, a third runway, expansion of other London airports and a brand new airport are all needed.

I think it should be illegal to block progress and economic development such as infrastructure expansion, how should small opinions get in the way.

The government should do some kind of online referendum and ask the ENITRE COUNTRY (because LHR affects everyone in terms of connections, taxes, tourism, business) if they want a new runway or not. I am sure most will say yes. If the outcome is no then threten to close LHR and remove jobs.

I think BA and the BAA are not doing enough. What about some publicity, some petitions. For example everytime you book a ticket on BA it tells you that due to APD and capacity restraints your ticket is artificially high, or perhaps on the IFE before the safety video explaining how corruption is causing possible delays on your flight. Maybe the BAA could buy some L1011'S or DC10's and fly them over the local area and threaten noisier planes if people complain. It's called thinking out of the box and making more noise than the oponents.

The same could be said for what would happen after R3 (which isn't really a proper runway, anyway), and with all that additional disruption and expense.....

Asking the country, especially in an online referendum, is about the worst way to go about this.

Want more money in your pockets? Yes please

Want less tax? Yes please

Want free childcare? Yes please

...ask the public if they want something they haven't got already and most would say yes, without considering the wider issues. Most probably wouldn't understand the wider issues even if explained SLOWLY to them.

I doubt people living in Barrow are very interested in R3.

PS BA and BAA are very happy with the status quo, thank you very much. BA would lose a HUGE amount of money if it lost its dominant position at the UK's major airport.

So you think we shouldn't expand Heathrow at all and should shunt domestic/short haul feeder flights elsewhere. That won't be popular with the airlines let alone BAA.

How do we know that JFK has greater birdlife issues than Thames Hub? Have you seen any surveys to back this up? It's not that they are a resident population it's that they are migratory to the area. In an article you linked to before it mentions 1,700 Canada Geese being culled, we're talking many many hundreds of thousands more than that for any Thames Estuary project.

For migrating birds? How do you do that exactly?

I'm very impressed that you know so much about the details of air traffic routing and the ability to just change things. You should apply for Mr Deakins job!

And there would also need to be one in for Boris Island, not sure I'd want the two very close together.

No doubt, but first you've got to deal with the other issues before you spend money doing that.
I don't doubt that a new airport is a good idea, it's just sticking it in the there in the Thames Estuary isn't a great one.

It's not the role of Government to support dominant businesses - that thankfully got somewhat reversed when BA got privatized though Maggie should never have been allowed to get away with complaining about the ethnic tailfins.

Anyway, if BA want more capacity let them move into the brand, spanking new T6 at STN. Of course the market cap. of BA would probably collapse overnight because it wouldn't be underpinned by its stranglehold on LHR slots, but again, that's not a Government role or responsibility.

Im aware of all those things. I am also aware that the government has been talking about a 3rd runway at Heathrow for about as long as i have been alive. By the time anything gets agreed, it will be far too late. So let's focus on the long term strategy...

Whatever we build on land, someone will move next to it and start moaning. Heathrow was in the middle of nowhere once. The only option is to build it so far away from where anyone might possibly want to live/complain and where there is freedom to expand/build at will. The attitude of 'we face too many problems to do that' is precisely the attitude i've come to realise holds the UK back so much. Of course there were problems building a massive international airport in the middle of the sea, but Hong Kong's attitude was 'we need this, so lets get on with it'.

I specifically said that those options are only short term options and if R3 gets full then they will still be short term measures that act as an interim solution.

Yes a referendum would be wrong but I said it to highlight how it does affect the whole country and a few busy-bodies who need to get jobs keep ruining it for the whole country.

So BAA is happy at collecting less landing fees than it is currently getting? Happy with less terminals and therefore less shopping locations than at the moment? BAA is happy for FRA/CDG is steal connecting passengers?

BA can't handle a bit of competition at LHR? They have handled VS, BD plus other airlines at other London airports. BA having a dominant position is bad anyway. I respect once R3 is built there will be a huge influx of uneeded capacity from many airlines but it will get rationalised. Plus protecting BA should not influence any decisions about infrastructure expansion.

You seem to be short sighted and when looking 20 years ahead a lot of work has to be done, I support cheaper airfares, more jobs, more destinations through a proper hub, less congestion.

100% agree, although it would takes years so an interim decision would still be required.

Time to think long-term...Are politicians capable of such things?

BAA obviously aren't very happy with the status quo hence why they want R3!

One thing that amuses me is how London based Politicians and Londoners in general have barely any understanding of transfers at airports.
This is why a lot of silly ideas like 'dual hubs' are being proposed by SE politicians. One ex Tory minister the other day said that Heathrow and Stansted could be connected by crossrail and become dual hubs with STN focusing on Asia/Europe and LHR focusing on the Americas. Does he really think I would collect my luggage and sit on a train for an hour over transitting at AMS or CPH? FRA and CDG are so awful I probs would prefer Heathsted.
Many SE based people talk of transfer pax with contempt. They fail to see how we benefit the economy even half wit Cameron in opposition said 'transfer pax offer nothing but the price of a cup of tea to the economy'. Well Mr Cameron what about our national airline and the 50,000 employed at LHR????

Pot Noodle

You say you would 'improve ATC to allow more landings per hour'......Can I ask you to expand? We try and do our best at all times so if we're missing anything please let us know!

oscietra

You do know how many cargo flights and ad-hoc slots there are into LHR, don't you? Not much capacity to be had there.

Spot on. ^

The government seem to have no idea of what is meant by 'conflict of interest' or why this is important. So we have the transport secretary whose constituency promises preclude her from considering the third runway and the culture secretary who likes Murdoch. Both can take the views they have but shouldn't be responsible for making decisions about them.