Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Further Delay Of LHR 3rd Runway  
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7809 posts, RR: 3
Posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks ago) and read 5174 times:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19517692

It seems that the whole thing has been kicked into the long grass.

Not only no decision until at least 2015, but probably no manifesto pledge, (except in broad terms) in 2015 either.

Our politicians will seemingly do anything to avoid this issue.

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineseansasLCY From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 903 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5138 times:

I think the agreement is that all parties (maybe not the Lib Dems) would pledge in their manifestos to follow the recommendations of the report.

Apparently he will produce some recommendations at the end of the year in an interim report.


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5102 times:

They did promise to not allow the third runway, so waiting until they go back before the electorate again is the right thing to do even if it annoys us.

However, they could at least give Heathrow mixed mode. It would be a stop gap that would cost very little (some ATC work to accomodate).


User currently offlinehuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1117 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4896 times:

I just saw this:

http://uk.phaidon.com/agenda/archite...s-for-new-london-airport-revealed/

If there is anything positive from this delay, it is that this thing could actually get built!



It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13529 posts, RR: 100
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4810 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bennett123 (Thread starter):
Our politicians will seemingly do anything to avoid this issue.

To whom does the EK/QF agreement send the gift basket?   

The little airports of Britain will grow, but they'll be feeding the big hubs.

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 3):
If there is anything positive from this delay, it is that this thing could actually get built!

London needs to do something to expand capacity in a big way. But will they? Split hubs are not nearly as effective as a concentrated hub. There is the adage "grow from strength."

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinehuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1117 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4693 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):
Split hubs are not nearly as effective as a concentrated hub. There is the adage "grow from strength."

The Thames Estuary proposals tend to involve consolidating all LON traffic into one airport. So it is still very much concentrated, in case that worries you.  



It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13529 posts, RR: 100
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4643 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 5):
The Thames Estuary proposals tend to involve consolidating all LON traffic into one airport. So it is still very much concentrated, in case that worries you.

I'm a HUGE proponent of the concept. In particular if it is a 24/7 airport.   

I do not worry about concentration if *that* airport is built. But will it? 2 runways at LHR, LGW, STN, and LTN is not my ideal.   Until the bulldozers flatten "Boris Island," I will be a skeptic.

Any may I set the explosive charge off on the Richard Montgomery?   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery

Mind you, from a large distance.   

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4563 times:

Dude, nothing in SE England gets to be ideal. There's too many people, vested interests and not enough room. The tube is the classic example. We need to be as realistic as possible in the timeframe. At least George Osbourne is going in the right direction on this one.

User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4506 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):
London needs to do something to expand capacity in a big way. But will they? Split hubs are not nearly as effective as a concentrated hub. There is the adage "grow from strength."

Or would UK benefit more by creating a MUC kind of second hub?

The situation in Germany certainly was different as FRA isn't anything like London is in UK and MUC is strong commercially, tourism, significant population. But isn't UK too much London and this is one way they can spearhead the rest of the country?


User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3089 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4325 times:

edit: Don't know what happened, posted in another thread, it ended up here!

[Edited 2012-09-07 19:29:05]


From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3694 times:

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 3):
If there is anything positive from this delay, it is that this thing could actually get built!

That looks really cool.

Though not as ostentatious, I quite like this one. It is better placed for the wider country and technically easier to do. Not sure if it would have operating hours constraints though.


User currently offlineZKOJH From China, joined Sep 2004, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 2744 times:

were still going be debating this in 2020 then, if anything happens they got to build it! so no end in sight for the shocking economy then!

But the idea of the 'London Britannia Airport looks well cool'

At the end of the day if they go for a new airport, who's going get the bill I wonder, the tax payers or the private purse?



CZ 787 to AKL can't wait.
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7809 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2265 times:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19577410

I read this, and had three questions;

1. What is the cost, and who pays.

2. what is the timescale.

3. Where are all the Ship Yards and Steel Works who are apparently going to build this structure.

This is all quite apart from the sheer technical feasability, fog, birds and shipping issues.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13529 posts, RR: 100
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2169 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cmf (Reply 8):
Or would UK benefit more by creating a MUC kind of second hub?

They tried at MAN. The issue is there are not two separable markets a la FRA/MUC. MUC has enough O&D to start flights and by being LH's "Italian gateway" has created a separate niche for itself. MUC is just enough geographically distant from FRA to allow the specialization. However... it would be better to have it all at FRA.  

At MAN, we have long haul being fragmented by non-UK airlines. I doubt that is what the UK wants, but it is the risk of a 'split-hub.' Could London support a JFK/EWR like competing hubs? Sure! For connections a LAX/FRA style hub is superior.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinedeclarets From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2011, 21 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2098 times:

A few things that need to be considered if London Britannia Airport goes ahead and heathrow is closed

1) Most of the freight forwarders, transport companies etc that are based around heathrow would need to relocate nearer to the new airport (from stanwell, colnbrook, hounslow, hayes, slough, egham etc)
2) The people that work at the airport would need to relocate nearer.
3) Alot of companies not related to the airport i.e. hotels, restaurants, cafe's, pubs, shops etc would end up going out of business.

They may create housing for 300,000 people but there wont be any work.

Why waste billions of pounds, just build a third runway and move all the NIMBY's to the Estuary.


User currently offlineba319-131 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 8589 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2088 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Another bad decision by our politicians.

Forget the nimbys, just build the third runway, it's the cheapest option and will have the least environmental impact of all the proposals.

BAA already own most of the area where it would be built!

The longer we delay this the more damage we cause to UK PLC.

Someone needs to grow a pair and make a decisions, bring back Maggie!



111,732,3,4,5,7,8,BBJ,741,742,743,744,752,762,763,764,772,77L,773,77W,L15,D10,30,40,AB3,AB6,A312.313,319,320,321,332,333
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12594 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2038 times:

I think it's somewhat ironic that those currently living under the flightpaths object so much; building a new runway could actually bring them some relief. Also, a shorter runway with strict performance rules (e.g. 5 degree descent paths and steep climb performance) would help to keep a lot of the traffic away from populated areas; as that runway is north of the current airport, approach paths could be kept well north of the city. They could also be alternated, with various traffic patterns designed to keep traffic away from built up areas, on takeoff and climb.

We know that aircraft like the Embraer E-jets and A32X (ok, just A318 currently) can descend on 5 degree glidepaths and the BAA and CAA can work with manufacturers of current and future planned aircraft, to make sure that their aircraft can meet the new tougher requirements, so that when the new runway is opened, the Bombardier C-series, 737 MAX, MRJ, A32xNEO and various other types can fly in.

There is a LOT that can be done to relief noise pressure from areas around the airport and R3 is a key part of this. It's unlikely that the runway would be opened this decade, so there's a long lead in time in terms of new technology which can be used to the runway's advantage. The big danger is "mission creep", i.e. gradually stretching the runway from its current planned c.6,000' to 7,000', then 8,000' etc etc; focus on getting the runway built and it being a shorter runway for feeder types. That way, it's going to be far easier to set and meet noise targets; an A380 at MTOW is not going to be a great climber! You're always going to have a core group of people who will be vocal and who will oppose any new development no matter what, BUT by being focused from day one on assuaging the reasonable fears about greater noise, there will be a much great chance of success.

I do agree, however, that in order to optimise the use of all three runways, a new terminal will be required to serve the new runway, so that crossing of 09L/27R can be kept to a minimum.


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...
LHR 3rd Runway Now Cancelled? posted Tue May 11 2010 16:20:17 by AirbusA6
LHR 3rd Runway Back To Public Consultation posted Fri Mar 26 2010 03:20:04 by david_itl
Alternate Location For LHR 3rd Runway posted Sun Feb 21 2010 18:43:35 by kaitak744
LHR 3rd Runway Decision Delayed Til Jan '09 posted Thu Dec 4 2008 02:05:27 by FLVILLA
LHR 3rd Runway, Status? posted Wed Nov 26 2008 18:26:38 by B747forever
LHR 3rd Runway Protestor Glues Himself To P.M! posted Tue Jul 22 2008 13:25:17 by Cumulus
LHR 3rd Runway Progress? posted Wed Nov 21 2007 08:19:41 by LHR27C
LHR 3rd Runway: They Had Owned The Land posted Sun Oct 22 2006 08:20:11 by Kaitak744
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