Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LHR 3rd Runway Progress?  
User currently offlineLHR27C From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 1279 posts, RR: 16
Posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5169 times:

Just came across this: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article3179638.ece

"Ministers will signal the go-ahead today for a third runway at Heathrow, announcing a public consultation on the project in spite of a commitment by Gordon Brown to curb CO2 emissions to reduce climate change."

Not much information in the article and not much about it elsewhere, but good news if true.


Once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned forever skyward
61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11520 posts, RR: 61
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5158 times:



Quoting LHR27C (Thread starter):
Ministers will signal the go-ahead today for a third runway at Heathrow

Well, I ordinarily would be very excited at this. Heathrow should have had a third runway twenty years ago.

But, of course, this is, after all, Heathrow. So even if somebody gives the "tentative," "conditional," "possible," "basic," "in-principle" go ahead, we all know that still means this will probably be 20 years before anything happens. We have to hear from the entire peanut gallery of tree-huggers, NIMBYs, Ugandan refugees, disabled children, feline AIDS activists, and every other aggrieved group, it seems.

We'll have to have the obligatory period of public comment, which usually lasts until at least one generation dies out, and then the debating period to discuss the comment and postulate potential alternatives, and then the rumination period to mull over the alternatives that were produced from the postulation of the discussion of the comment.

Blah, blah, blah.

Let me know when the stupid thing is built.


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5149 times:

Please God let this be true.

Of course the NIMBY's will take this to the Court of human rights and threaten not to vote labour and so get it repealed but hey ho - encouraging noises.

There wont be any actualy runway until about 2016 I dont think.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineExpress1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5128 times:

I protest about people moaning about Heathrow expansion,there is nothing anyone can do about stopping it, what BAA wants, BAA will get. I thought i put my pound in, just in case anyone comes in and complains about the expansion.

dave


User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4007 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5127 times:

Come on Brits, instead of building a little itty bitty runway, go and build a real airport!

User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12981 posts, RR: 100
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5117 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 2):
There wont be any actualy runway until about 2016 I dont think.

Sadly true. One could hope to have it by the London Olympics (new terminal too). That would be a great event to tie the expansion into. (It also gives the crews a great deadline to force the pace.) e.g., Like Beijing and ICN working to complete their latest expansions before July 2008 (so that some shakeout occurs before 8/8/8).

Think of the hub LHR could be... one stop shopping to get anywhere to anywhere. Personally, I believe some of the success of other hubs is due to the high cost of slots at LHR. (Its only worth buying a slot at LHR if you can fill a very large airframe at good yeild.)

Is it 2020 when LGW is allowed to add another terminal and runway? I guess that until then, only STN will see huge growth.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17061 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5116 times:



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 2):
There wont be any actualy runway until about 2016 I dont think.

Wow, so loooong time it will take.



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11520 posts, RR: 61
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5110 times:



Quoting Express1 (Reply 3):
there is nothing anyone can do about stopping it, what BAA wants, BAA will get.

This isn't even about BAA anymore, though, and what they "want" and will "get." This goes way beyond those morons. They have proven themselves perfectly effective at running large shopping malls, not airports, anyway.

This is about what passengers, and people want: namely, they want more flights to the premier airport for one of the world's premier cities. They also don't want delays, endless lines, horrific customer service, hit-and-miss baggage delivery, etc.


User currently offlineExpress1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5077 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 7):
This isn't even about BAA anymore, though, and what they "want" and will "get." This goes way beyond those morons. They have proven themselves perfectly effective at running large shopping malls, not airports, anyway.

This is about what passengers, and people want: namely, they want more flights to the premier airport for one of the world's premier cities. They also don't want delays, endless lines, horrific customer service, hit-and-miss baggage delivery, etc.

umm who owns Heathrow?

dave


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11520 posts, RR: 61
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5066 times:



Quoting Express1 (Reply 8):
umm who owns Heathrow?

BAA, obviously.

The point I was making is that as much as some hate to give an inch to BAA - I'm one of them - as they obviously don't deserve it and have proven themselves completely incapable of effectively running Heathrow, something must be done.

Like I said, whether Heathrow is government-owned or now in private hands, it should have had at least three runways two decades ago. And, sadly, it will probably be two decades longer before it does get runway #3, if ever.

I'd like to be optimistic, but given recent history, I just can't be. I hope I'll be pleasantly surprised, and we'll get another runway before the next ice age.


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5021 times:

This will go to appeal, and then to the House of Lords and then to the EU High Court for Human Rights. It will cost the British taxpayer billions before anyone lays a square foot of concrete.

In fact - I would say that the runway will probably cost the same as a Gold-plated one on private land. Certainly the most expensive bit of concrete per square foot anywhere on the planet.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineExpress1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5021 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 9):

well im all for airport expantion,yes a few years late but hey this is England with a shit Government.

dave


User currently offlineR2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2596 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4977 times:

Third runway at LHR? HA ! I'll believe it when I see it!  laughing 

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 5):

Is it 2020 when LGW is allowed to add another terminal and runway?

Actually 2019, thanks to a decision taken in 1979.  banghead 

Quoting Commavia (Reply 9):
Like I said, whether Heathrow is government-owned or now in private hands, it should have had at least three runways two decades ago. And, sadly, it will probably be two decades longer before it does get runway #3, if ever.

Whether it's BAA, ABA or AAB running the airport, it doesn't matter. Running a 70 million passenger airport with outdated terminals made for 45 million and only two miserable runways is an impossible task no matter who manages it.


User currently offlineQatarA340 From Qatar, joined May 2006, 1817 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4948 times:

Its such a shame that a country that used to rule the world cant get a third runway to serve the over-populated airport. It is lagging behind other countries in term of infrastructure.

Cant Queen Elizabeth make an order to force the people to construct the airport--or VETO the ban by the green activists?



لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
User currently offlineExpress1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4912 times:

If you think on how many European airports had expantions to extra runways and terminals without problems,then why is this country any diffrent.

dave


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4885 times:



Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 13):
Its such a shame that a country that used to rule the world cant get a third runway to serve the over-populated airport. It is lagging behind other countries in term of infrastructure.

To be fair, it's a lot easier to expand an airport when all around it is either desert or empty countryside. SE England is one of the most densely built up areas of the world, so any development will be lot more expensive and affect more people on the ground....

We also have a a very democratic planning system, and while I agree it's far too slow (the T5 planning process was a joke) I wouldn't like the other extreme either, of governments being able to build anything they like, irrespective of the thoughts of the people affected.



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineKL911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 5123 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4867 times:



Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 15):
SE England is one of the most densely built up areas of the world, so any development will be lot more expensive and affect more people on the ground....

Well, the western part of The Netherlands has the highest amount of people per square km. in the world. So how can AMS just have build a 5th runway, and planning up to 9 runways in the future, while Heathrow can't even have a 3rd one?

I guess someone in the past made a very stupid descision to allow houses build too close to the airport on all sides, thus blocking any expansion.

KL911



Next trip : DUB-AUH-CGK-DPS-KUL-AUH-CDG-ORK :-)
User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4840 times:



Quoting KL911 (Reply 16):
Well, the western part of The Netherlands has the highest amount of people per square km. in the world. So how can AMS just have build a 5th runway

Well do remember that as part of the agreement for a 5th runway, AMS had to cut its maximum declared capacity per hour. The 5th runway gives it more operational flexibility but in terms of overall capacity it is now less with 5 runways than it was with 4. with LHR at its absolute limit, that simply wouldn't be an option with the 3rd runway.



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineKL911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 5123 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4810 times:



Quoting Cornish (Reply 17):
Well do remember that as part of the agreement for a 5th runway, AMS had to cut its maximum declared capacity per hour. The 5th runway gives it more operational flexibility but in terms of overall capacity it is now less with 5 runways than it was with 4. with LHR at its absolute limit, that simply wouldn't be an option with the 3rd runway.

Well... That's true. Dutch nimby's should just buy their own island far away. ( Not one of those Dubai islands though, soon you get 70 A380's per hour over your house..  Smile )

Even relieve airports as Lelystad and Groningen are trying for 15 years already to get just an extansion of the runway to accomodate holiday charters and LCC's which could give AMS some breathingspace.



Next trip : DUB-AUH-CGK-DPS-KUL-AUH-CDG-ORK :-)
User currently offlineTristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3998 posts, RR: 34
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4797 times:



Quoting KL911 (Reply 16):
guess someone in the past made a very stupid descision to allow houses build too close to the airport on all sides, thus blocking any expansion.

Trouble is most of the houses on the North and South sides of the airport were built in the 1930's, London AirPort was not opened until 1946.


User currently offlineKL911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 5123 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4775 times:



Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 19):
Trouble is most of the houses on the North and South sides of the airport were built in the 1930's,

Well, that's old enough to be demolished and new houses being build somewhere else. They can't object since they complain about the noise all the time..... Good for them and good for LHR.....or not?



Next trip : DUB-AUH-CGK-DPS-KUL-AUH-CDG-ORK :-)
User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A lot of us will be middle-aged by the time the asphalt on a new runway is dry, i wouldn't bother counting down the months and years. There are too many political, environmental and ethical obstructions in the way, it will happen but not soon enough. Meetings, public consultations, public inquiries, reports, feasability studies, you name it, all in the way of a runway.


In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineExpress1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4767 times:



Quoting KL911 (Reply 20):
Well, that's old enough to be demolished and new houses being build somewhere else. They can't object since they complain about the noise all the time..... Good for them and good for LHR.....or not?

If the 3rd runway gets built,i'm sure BAA will have to pay for new homes that get demolished.

dave


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12427 posts, RR: 37
Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4683 times:



Quoting Arsenal@LHR (Reply 21):
There are too many political, environmental and ethical obstructions in the way, it will happen but not soon enough. Meetings, public consultations, public inquiries, reports, feasability studies, you name it, all in the way of a runway.

Those opposed to it will certainly try to slow it up as much as possible, but I understand that the govt will try to short circuit some of this by using the new streamlined/fast track planning process for major infrastructural projects.

Also, there has been some talk of making the runway "full length", i.e. 11-12,000', rather than the originally proposed 6-7,000'. I think the shorter length would be better for a number of reasons:
(a) it will be easily to prove that it will benefit regions in the UK, not just increasing long haul flights (which will be increased anyway, as short haul flights are moved to the shorter runway); the govt needs to show that this is going to be of benefit to the UK economy as a whole;
(b) if they go for a full length runway, then - following from the above, that just benefits long haul flights and even though more slots will be created and new short haul routes will be opened (and saved), ultimately, we'll be back to a situation where short haul flights are competing with long haul flights - and losing.

Finally, how long will it be, I wonder before a move is made to introduce a new terminal complex; with the new runway and only the current terminal area now in use, acft using the new runway will have to cross 27R/9L to get to/from this, which will cause serious delays and congestion; a new terminal - which has been mooted - could help reduce delays and maximise the use of all three runways.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12981 posts, RR: 100
Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4629 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting R2rho (Reply 12):
Actually 2019, thanks to a decision taken in 1979.

Thanks. Although, do you really think it will get done that year earlier.  Wink

That will be its own dog fight....  banghead 

Quoting KL911 (Reply 18):
Not one of those Dubai islands though, soon you get 70 A380's per hour over your house..

Not even EK is that ambitious.  Wink yet...  hyper 

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 23):

Also, there has been some talk of making the runway "full length", i.e. 11-12,000', rather than the originally proposed 6-7,000'. I think the shorter length would be better for a number of reasons:

Actually, a "Full length" (3500m or so) would allow for the creation of more cargo facilities. While the shorter length is an easier sell (IIRC 2500m, not 6,000').

Quoting Arsenal@LHR (Reply 21):
A lot of us will be middle-aged by the time the asphalt on a new runway is dry, i wouldn't bother counting down the months and years.

Sigh... I think I'd count as "middle aged" if it were ready by the 2012 Olympics!  cry 

Quoting R2rho (Reply 12):

Whether it's BAA, ABA or AAB running the airport, it doesn't matter. Running a 70 million passenger airport with outdated terminals made for 45 million and only two miserable runways is an impossible task no matter who manages it.

And that is the big issue. London needs business traffic. It also needs the vacation traffic. Slowly fewer and fewer seats are going to be left for hubbing. This means that the lower yield markets will continue to be dropped in favor of the high yield markets. That means the hubbing gets done somewhere else at the cost of London jobs.  Sad

But I'm not going to hold my breath...

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 23):
Finally, how long will it be, I wonder before a move is made to introduce a new terminal complex;

Long after T5 and the new T1. I'm not seeing enough land being left unused to build a new complex between the new runway and the old.  Sad

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
25 VV701 : If we could forget all of the planning issues and delays it is almost impossible for a third runway to be ready before the 2012 Olympics. We can all
26 ABpositive : But wouldn't the 3rd runaway in fact work in favour of reducing CO2 emissions as it would reduce the time aircrafts need to spend wasting fuel while
27 LHR27C : Even STN has problems, the runway is capped at 25m pax/annum at the moment, which it's rapidly approaching, and BAA's plans to overturn that were (su
28 Post contains images Cornish : Oh yes HACAN - the same HACAN whose spokesman recently presented a paper at a conference in Istanbul. One assumed he drove there from London or took
29 GCT64 : And the communities of Harmondsworth, Sipson & Harlington go back far further than that. For example, Harmondsworth was first recorded back in 1082 (
30 Glom : It's okay. We've got their names and addresses. Damn right. Whatever happened to the Thames Estuary airport?
31 LHR777 : People have short memories. Does nobody remember that LHR had 3 runways until very recently? The cross-wind runway 23? Now operating as taxiway-Alpha
32 QatarA340 : If those environmentalists just SHUT UP, they can help their planet from emitting those harmful CO2 gas more than a runway would. People all over the
33 Post contains links LHR27C : Main news on BBC now: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7106524.stm
34 UAL777UK : Just on that point, didn't LHR have in fact four runways in the past, the 4th was shut down years ago and was parallel to runway 23,on the West side
35 Flipdewaf : Think you missed the point on that one, in england we often don't tend to see houses like cars. Old is good! Imagine if someone offered you a piper t
36 Singapore_Air : As a comment, I watched a few hours ago a debate on BBC NEWS 24 between Susan Kramer, Liberal Democrat MP for some area around LHR and the CEO of BAA.
37 LHRBlueSkies : And it's because of their historical value that there will be so many planning problems. New isn't always best! Simply kicking people out of their ho
38 VV701 : Back in 1946 the plans were for LHR to have three pairs of parallel runways. There were the East-West pair (today's 27L/09R and 27R/09L) the NW-SE pa
39 Post contains links and images PlymSpotter : I think they were all used as runways actually, but gradually as aircraft advanced and the terminal expansion was required they became obsolete. The
40 LHR27C : Actually 5L/23R (as well as 5R/23L) and 15R/33L both certainly had movements in the 60s. The "Star of David" pattern was from the era when aircraft w
41 Glom : I will hear many things against NIMBYs but you're right. The T5 debacle was pathetic. The terminal was to be built on an old sewage works with access
42 Post contains images Farnborough24 : It's a valid point to make that this cannot really be fairly compared to the T5 planning debate. As Glom rightly points out, that wasn't exactly life
43 Singapore_Air : Greenpeace on BBC NEWS 24: If the UK Government backs the third runway, it can say goodbye to its environmental credentials. There is no need for a th
44 LHRBlueSkies : Not going to happen, as it's just not needed, and there is nowhere that can take such a massive commitment, without having more towns levelled, etc.
45 Lightsaber : Don't you love how anti-airport people point out these facts. So they would rather have them hub elsewhere? e.g, CDG, BRU, or DXB? I know this is a p
46 Post contains images R2rho : Ok, so according to the BBC article (and others), the runway could start operating in... 2020!!!!!!! If I were BAA, I would take this to be a very bad
47 Post contains images Kaitak : Glad to see that HMG is taking a stand on this and pushing the development forward, but as said above, 2020 is far too late. Interesting, too, to see
48 Glom : These days, who in the government isn't about to lose their job?
49 Post contains images Leezyjet : Don't see why myself. They are in completely seperate areas and could be managed by seperate teams so I can't really see any reason to delay the buil
50 Singapore_Air : Haha. Yes. I was meant to say £5 Billion and up to £7 Billion my government estimates though apparently external estimates cited by Jim Fitzpatrick
51 Halls120 : Whenever I read a story about the problems at LHR, I say a silent "thank you" to whoever had the foresight to build Dulles out in the then-sticks, an
52 VV701 : The proposal to wait until 2020 is the worst possible scenario for the airport, the travelling public AND those most likely to be worst effected if it
53 Post contains links VinnieWinnie : For a detailed analysis of what a third runway and a 6th terminal would imply: http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/heathrowconsultation/ Plenty o
54 Post contains links Glom : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...st_contributors/article2925884.ece London AM regurgitates the Maplin Sands idea.
55 Post contains images Lightsaber : " target=_blank>http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/...tion/ Curse you! From the size of the downloads, that will take me hours to read! (Note: 'curs
56 VV701 : Of course one is to the north of the current airport and the other is right in the centre. But wait a minute. How do the construction vehicles get to
57 Kaitak : I saw in yesterday's Telegraph that the business community in London - banks, investment companies etc - are making noises in support of T3; I can onl
58 Post contains images VinnieWinnie : Did you manage? I only read the bits I was interested in hehehe the rest is way too boring...
59 Post contains images LHR27C : Reading through the documents, NATS' preferred option would be for the new runway to be mixed and then of the other two either 27C/09C arrivals, 27L/
60 Kaitak : I've just ordered the "paper document" from the DfT's website and will be making a submission on behalf of my local air transport "special interest gr
61 Kaitak : Just received the LHR growth summary document in the post and it makes interesting reading, although it is very, indeed surprisingly, short. No illust
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
BA: LHR 3rd Runway Sooner Than Later posted Thu Jun 8 2006 00:26:25 by Scotron11
LHR 3rd Runway 'Ruled Out In Short Term' posted Sat Nov 29 2003 10:35:29 by Planesarecool
LHR: Would 3rd Runway Mean More Domestic Routes? posted Sun Feb 29 2004 17:54:16 by Capital146
3rd Runway At LHR-Public Meeting To Be Held posted Thu Jul 18 2002 10:35:11 by Qantas744
LHR Takeoff Runway Tommorow Am posted Wed Aug 1 2007 19:57:16 by FlyTUITravel
LHR Third Runway - Already Built? ;) posted Fri Jun 1 2007 22:24:14 by 6YJJK
Policitian Vs. MUC's 3rd Runway posted Mon May 21 2007 12:49:25 by SailorOrion
HKG Is Planning On A 3rd Runway posted Thu Sep 14 2006 09:27:22 by YLWbased
3rd Runway At MUC-NIMBYs May Sue Airport posted Tue Jul 25 2006 21:16:24 by A342
LHR 3pm Runway Switch posted Sat Jan 21 2006 21:13:57 by TLVFred