Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UK Gov Confirm NO 3rd Runway At LHR.  
User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3217 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7475 times:

In a TV interview on CH4 in the UK aired a few minutes ago the Prime Minister, speaking from Jakarta said that there would be no 3rd runway at Heathrow under his leadership.
No link yet.


you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
58 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3225 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7329 times:

Like no Tuition Fees under Clegg's? London mayoral election is upcoming in May also.

User currently onlineCALMSP From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3929 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7319 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Another government that doesn't support the industry. He clearly doesn't realize that, without building a third runway, which will increase flights, LHR will continue to lose out on revenue that is quickly moving towards the middle east carriers.


okay, I'm waiting for the rich to spread the wealth around to me. Please mail your checks to my house.
User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3385 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7297 times:

Interesting that he says 'under his leadership' so it could be approved as early as 2015 or more likely 2020.

Also interesting that he says LHR so LGW or STN could be getting a new one


User currently offlineanstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5187 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7264 times:

Quoting readytotaxi (Thread starter):
In a TV interview on CH4 in the UK aired a few minutes ago the Prime Minister, speaking from Jakarta said that there would be no 3rd runway at Heathrow under his leadership.
No link yet.

I dont htink he will get another term anyway... so bring on the 3rd runway!


User currently offlinegingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 893 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7184 times:

What an idiotic government. Never ceases to amaze me.


Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
User currently offlineLondonCity From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 1478 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7126 times:

Quoting readytotaxi (Thread starter):
In a TV interview on CH4 in the UK aired a few minutes ago the Prime Minister, speaking from Jakarta said that there would be no 3rd runway at Heathrow under his leadership.

The other fact which came out of the interview is that the UK government would arrange for Garuda (our PM is currently in Jakarta) to gain landing rights in London. But the PM did not specify which airport ...


User currently offlinecargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1262 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7045 times:

Can anyone offer more insight on the rationale behind opposing a third runway? It would seem from an outsider's perspective that a third runway is seriously needed, and that just a quick glance at a map reveals plenty of land available to do it with - though there would be considerable cost to relocate some people.

I can understand that people don't want even more heavies flying over their house at 5 am, but if the UK needs this infrastructure improvement, the opposition is only delaying the inevitable and raising the cost to taxpayers and residents.

I'd like to hear more on what substantive things - i.e. beyond "I don' want no more aeroplanes goin' over my flat" the opposition is putting forth to support not enlarging LHR.

[Edited 2012-04-11 12:48:32]

User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1761 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6974 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cargolex (Reply 7):
Can anyone offer more insight on the rationale behind opposing a third runway?

The people who live near LHR don't want a 3rd runway due to their concern about additional flights=additional noise. It's a typical NIBY scenario. This attitude occurs despite the fact the airport complies with all applicable noise regulations and has a curfew. It also ignores the fact that a VAST majority of the people within the affected area bought or rented their home(s) knowing they were in the noise impact area for LHR.

The UK government isn't alone with taking a short term and spineless approach to large public operations such as airports. If you combine that with the increases in taxation and infrastructure issues compared to the competition, it puts the UK on a downward path from a competitive standpoint.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3225 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6925 times:

It would mean a massive increase in noise for some influential people in Kensington, Chelsea et al with the extended centreline over Buckingham Palace..... Certainly Parliament Square would have a whole new line of landers overhead!

That and some key marginals but my friends who live near Heathrow all their lives don't notice it. It is often he newcomers who shout loudest in protest.

[Edited 2012-04-11 13:31:52]

User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9768 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6901 times:

Well, there might be a positive side to this afterall: More A380 sales for Airbus and possibly an A380 stretch (A380-900) meaning a new A380 customer (Cathay Pacific) and again 50 plus orders coming from Emirates for the A380-900!!! 

A388

[Edited 2012-04-11 12:55:06]

User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3217 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6241 times:

Here is link to TV interview, skip to 2:50 in for airport quote.

http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbo...es-pm-all-the-way-to-jakarta/18816



you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offlineMAN2SIN2BKK From Thailand, joined Feb 2009, 229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6209 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 8):
The UK government isn't alone with taking a short term and spineless approach to large public operations such as airports. If you combine that with the increases in taxation and infrastructure issues compared to the competition, it puts the UK on a downward path from a competitive standpoint

Agreed, totally shortsighted statement from the PM; BTW, didn't he go to Eton? Maybe he promised the headmaster that he wouldn't allow any additional flights to disturb the boys' studies


User currently offlineual777uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6183 times:

Quoting readytotaxi (Thread starter):
under his leadership.

That means nothing, he could be gone in a couple of years and lets hope the next leader of whatever party still does not have their heads in te sand and relaises the third runway is essential.

Quoting LondonCity (Reply 6):
The other fact which came out of the interview is that the UK government would arrange for Garuda (our PM is currently in Jakarta) to gain landing rights in London. But the PM did not specify which airport ...

Well lets hope it LGW and let the PM explain that there are no decent slopts available at LHR as its bursting at the seams!

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 8):
It also ignores the fact that a VAST majority of the people within the affected area bought or rented their home(s) knowing they were in the noise impact area for LHR.

Amd of course a VAST majority of those people are either directly or indirectly employed by companies associated with LHR. I wonder how these same people would feel if Boris Island was built and they had to relocate or lose their jobs! Hmmm.


User currently offlineChrisba777er From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6039 times:

No surprise there then.

We'll spend another £200m on another study to suss out which is the most economically and environmentally sound way of expanding airport capacity in London, and then take eight years messing about to make a decision that the results of the study are not correct and we need another study.

The plan is of course that you leave it for some other sucker to deal with.

God i despise this country sometimes. Breaks my heart to see what we've become.



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 offlinebtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 578 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5907 times:

By putting out a sound bite about there being no extra runway at Heathrow sends a message to those within the flight path... mainly west London. Here you have influential, wealthy voters. I recall around the time of Boris Johnson campaigning for Mayor - he proposed no extension to the congestion zone (which would have moved west). He won the vote against Ken who wanted it... Now the tories are playing a similar game with Heathrow and it just so happens to be the year we vote for a new mayor... (i.e Boris).

It's politics.

There will be a new runway. The government cannot be beating the business development drum abroad and not have the infrastructure to support it. My guess there will be a new runway at Stansted. Less homes to be displaced means fewer voters to annoy... and in the meantime, those in West London can sigh relief having been falsely put in a state of fear by the government who have now 'resolved' the matter. The west London voters are happy, and will continue to vote Tory.



146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
User currently offlinerichardw From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 3749 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5872 times:

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 2):
LHR will continue to lose out on revenue that is quickly moving towards the middle east carriers.

That has already happened. There is no need to build a third runway to play catch up.


User currently offlineMAN2SIN2BKK From Thailand, joined Feb 2009, 229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5797 times:

Quoting btblue (Reply 15):
There will be a new runway. The government cannot be beating the business development drum abroad and not have the infrastructure to support it. My guess there will be a new runway at Stansted. Less homes to be displaced means fewer voters to annoy... and in the meantime, those in West London can sigh relief having been falsely put in a state of fear by the government who have now 'resolved' the matter. The west London voters are happy, and will continue to vote Tory.

And which airlines will move from the centre of the action to the backwater of Stansted?


User currently offlineDano1977 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Jun 2008, 487 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5700 times:

Governments always make promises, then somehow get forgotton about...

1. No frontline cuts
2. Protecting the NHS budget
3. 3,000 more police officers
4. Keeping VAT at 17.5%
5. Keeping the Future Jobs Fund
6. Keeping Education Maintenance Allowances
7. Preserving tax credits for middle earners
8. Removing the “couple penalty”
9. Scrapping tuition fees
10. No bonuses for bank directors
11. 3,000 more midwives
12. Three more army battalions
13. Pupil Premium additional to the schools budget
14. Keeping Child Benefit universal
15. Stopping A&E and maternity closures
16. A Post Office Bank
17. No new nuclear power stations
18. Removing high marginal tax rates
19. No cuts to the Royal Navy
20. Automatic prison sentence for carrying a knife
21. Cutting rail fares each year
22. Keeping the Child Trust Fund for the poorest families
23. No more top down NHS reorganisations
24. No cuts to public spending this year


So don't read to much into it. And wait for the government report into Airports which the Chancellor announced during the budget.



Children should only be allowed on aircraft if 1. Muzzled and heavily sedated 2. Go as freight
User currently offlineTeamInTheSky From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5670 times:

I lived long enough in the UK to realize that when Cameron says something like this, in a month or two they will announce the plan for the 3rd Runway. I mean, how many 180's have we had already?

Kind Regards,

TinTS



Since 2010: DL, KL, AF, WX, IG, FR , FL, U2, AK, BA, OK, UX, VS, VN, K6
User currently onlineusdcaguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5604 times:

I see this as a misguided approach (no pun intended). LHR desperately needs another runway to at least alleviate the issues with slot restrictions. If more flights were able to land at LHR simultaneously, that could potentially open the market for more direct competition vs. BA and bring down prices for consumers across the board. I'm not usually much of a capitalist, but when you consider the number of people with modest means who use LHR, I believe more flights and therefore competition would be beneficial to many around the world.

User currently offlinerichardw From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 3749 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5551 times:

People with modest means tend to fly ryanair from their local airport to Spain for their annual holidays, they can't afford the long haul APD tax for flights to say the USA from heathrow. Competition would not bring back starting prices from LHR-NYC at £269 return because of the APD tax.

User currently offlineual777uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5549 times:

Quoting MAN2SIN2BKK (Reply 17):
And which airlines will move from the centre of the action to the backwater of Stansted?

Exactly. They can build three more runways at STN but no one from LHR will jump ship over there.


User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3217 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5514 times:

Quoting LondonCity (Reply 6):
The other fact which came out of the interview is that the UK government would arrange for Garuda (our PM is currently in Jakarta) to gain landing rights in London. But the PM did not specify which airport ...

I would guess he has done a deal for Gatwick, as the TV interviewer said you can't fly direct at the moment and that is going to hinder trade.



you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offlinecygnuschicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 5456 times:

Since moving to London about 4 months ago, I just don't see the need for a third runway. In every single one of my 20+ arrivals since, regardless of terminal, only maximum 3 immigration desks have been open. My immigration wait time averages around 50 min, and at least two trips have had over 2h of queuing.

LHR have the desks, but don't staff them. Imagine the disaster if more landings were taking place.

Let's first get the airport working for the flights that are there, before they add more.



If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
25 PanHAM : well, that's not the airport, that's the government cutting spending, meaning cutting jobs. Tuesday this week around noon, even the UK and European p
26 boeing773W : That's one of the reasons, and a pretty important one at that. Another issue is that advanced by the tree huggers about an increase in pollution. The
27 Post contains links nclmedic : Yet only last month he said this: ""I'm not blind to the need to increase airport capacity, particularly in the South East" and "we need to retain our
28 Post contains images RyanairGuru : I'm a UK/Australian citizen and always fill out the arrivals card for non-EU citizens and then join which ever queue is shortest. That usually means
29 Chrisba777er : In fairness I fly through LHR about twice a week, 80% short haul. I have never, ever had to wait more than 30 mins even in the zoo that is T1, ot T3 i
30 NUAir : Judging by the length of time it took to propose, plan and approve the high speed rail line to Birmingham and the fact that a large number of us will
31 SonomaFlyer : Unfortunately the US isn't immune to failed government. Just ask the people of San Diego for example about attempt to find a long term solution to SA
32 gingersnap : The sad thing is, you're not exactly far wrong with this analogy. We like to debate things in this country about 10-20 times before anything is even
33 nighthawk : It is all about managing capacity vs workload. Sure you could open up 6 desks and process everyone in 30 minutes, but what would the staff then do fo
34 speedbird128 : In all my international travel at LHR I have always waited unacceptably long compared to FRA or CDG (being non-EU national I have to clear at all the
35 frmrCapCadet : Airports know almost to the person how many people will be going through immigration and security lines throughout the day. Fliers are charged for the
36 IADLHR : Even if they started construction today b on a 3rd runway at LHR, by the time it was open, it seems like LHR would still be behind FRA, CDG, AMS etc.
37 babybus : That trend is now unstoppable. They have super efficient A380s which suck passengers off other aircraft. The Middle East carriers also have the money
38 gingersnap : Sure it wouldn't be a problem, if we don't take into account the amount of jobs that will be relocated. Some will be able to move or commute at a pus
39 TonyBurr : They may not be increasing revenue by adding the third runway, but they will get the revenue by continuing to increase the taxes on tickets.
40 cygnuschicago : Precisely. So if the government is not prepared to pay for staffing for current operational levels, what on earth is going to happen during the Olymp
41 ikramerica : Why would the third runway have to be full service? It could be built restricted to use 8:30AM-7PM, limited to inter-EU flights only and narrowbodies
42 richardw : Intermingling heavies with narrow bodies is already being minimised as and when necessary.
43 SonomaFlyer : ikramerica, how dare you make sense! Actually this is a great idea. Keeping the curfew, restricting the departure uses for this runway etc would help
44 richardw : Won't blunt the arguments against demolition and destruction to actually build the runway though, so not a great idea.
45 cygnuschicago : Bear in mind, the anti-runway crowd is not so much the residents of Sipson. It is the rent-a-crowd group Plane Stupid, most of whom probably couldn't
46 Quokkas : But why, if you are opposed to more aircraft, would you oppose A380s sucking passengers from other aircraft? Perhaps larger (and quieter) aircraft op
47 Post contains images PlymSpotter : No surprise at the no 3rd runway at LHR announcement. I am more interested to know their thinking on using Northolt as a de-facto third runway for UK
48 richardw : Utilisation of different aircraft has already happened, with B744s being replaced with B77Ws and A380s and is likely to continue with say B767s being
49 ual777uk : That in my mind is a completely rediculous idea. Apart from the distance from LHR and the neccesity to build a hyper quick link between the two airpo
50 Glom : What exaggeration? Ever hear of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route? Apparently we are already resigned to calamity. I'm pretty sure the residents
51 yenne09 : According to Paul Kehoe, Chief Executive Officer of Birmingham airport, the Department for Transport estimates that there will be another 125 million
52 Post contains images PlymSpotter : There is no necessity to build a 'hyper quick link', a bonded coach link would be entirely sufficient and I would not imagine there being much in the
53 Post contains images ual777uk : 15 min! Whose driving the coach, Fernando Alonso! Its going back to the dark ages to suggest that kind of set up IMHO and lets not even think about r
54 Post contains images PlymSpotter : It was a guess - Google says 17 mins, current traffic 25 mins, so not too far off. An hour flight plus even a half hour airside transfer is easily pr
55 gingersnap : Well I knew of it, I didn't realise how long it was actually taking until I looked it up there. I suppose I wasn't exaggerating after all. Announced
56 fca767 : Then what...it will just be another one of those three governments that keep coming in...it's like a baton between people who went to the same school
57 mikey72 : I can never figure out whether this is good or bad for BA and VS. BA have now secured reasonable expansion opportunity with BD and as much as VS moan
58 Post contains images PanHAM : He alternates with Michael Schumacher. Back before T5 I often transferred from T1 to T4 on BA and that took longer than 15 minutes so in any case a t
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...
3rd Runway At LHR-Public Meeting To Be Held posted Thu Jul 18 2002 10:35:11 by Qantas744
3rd Elevated Runway At LHR posted Sun Mar 14 2010 13:37:43 by simplikate
Proposed New Runway At LHR posted Sun Apr 13 2008 01:25:13 by Readytotaxi
Man W/Rucksack On Runway At LHR -27R Runway Closed posted Thu Mar 13 2008 08:10:23 by StarGoldLHR
BA 777 Off Runway At LHR - Part 9 posted Mon Feb 4 2008 09:58:36 by WILCO737
BA 777 Off Runway At LHR - Part 8 posted Thu Jan 24 2008 11:04:25 by Srbmod
BA 777 Off Runway At LHR - Part 7 posted Mon Jan 21 2008 13:07:39 by Srbmod
BA 777 Off Runway At LHR - Part 3 posted Thu Jan 17 2008 12:29:37 by Srbmod
BA 777 Off Runway At LHR - Part 2 posted Thu Jan 17 2008 06:58:20 by Pe@rson
BA 777 Off Runway At LHR posted Thu Jan 17 2008 05:03:31 by Virgin747LGW