Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
London Mayor Wrong To Dismiss R3 At LHR? UK Pm!  
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12466 posts, RR: 37
Posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7286 times:

Excuse the abbreviations, but I couldn't get it all in otherwise!

David Cameron (he who blocked the third runway on his first day in office as PM, two years ago!) has claimed that Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, is wrong to dismiss a third runway at Heathrow! Well, talk about a 180 on the turning pad!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20191564

While this statement is certainly encouraging, it doesn't bring new runway capacity an inch forward; the govt is to set up a committee to look into aviation capacity (which is basically a political sop - a mechanism designed to show that something is being done, while making sure that nothing contentious is seen to be done before the next election!).

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1823 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7059 times:

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
the govt is to set up a committee to look into aviation capacity (which is basically a political sop - a mechanism designed to show that something is being done, while making sure that nothing contentious is seen to be done before the next election!).

Sounds just like Sweden. With any issue that they feel is uncomfortable. Modern day politics, act like you are doing something when you rather just have to issue go away by itself.


User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3259 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6985 times:

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
while making sure that nothing contentious is seen to be done before the next election!

That's for sure! Might see a new runway at LGW before LHR at this pace. 

But in the wider picture I think we need to pay more attention to the better use of airspace in the EU, perhaps get onboard with the "one EU ATC system" that has been proposed, no good taking off from your new runway if ATC can not route you to your destination.



you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11655 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6575 times:

Some of this is purely party political. Boris Johnson is the biggest threat to Cameron's leadership of the Conservatives, in the eyes of the public he's probably preferable as PM over Milliband and certainly Clegg.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinegoosebayguy From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4649 times:

A third runway would be a short term measure only. Boris Island is the only sane route with four runways possibly more.

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1823 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4185 times:

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 4):
A third runway would be a short term measure only. Boris Island is the only sane route with four runways possibly more.

What would be the cost of relocation etc? I don't think there will be a third runway nor a new airport, this problem will be solved by the market itself. I guess the biggest loser is LHR and London in the end.


User currently offlineGCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4034 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 3):
Some of this is purely party political

When it comes to the 3rd runway at LHR, I'm not sure it is even true to say that only "Some of this ...." is political. The issue is mostly political and, sadly, has little to do with aviation, business or British competitiveness.

Luckily London is one of the top (or is it actually the top) O&D destination in the world (certainly far larger than any other city in Europe) so flights to London will continue whether or not LHR is a major hub and whether or not the flights have to be spread across multiple airports.



Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A388,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,B462,(..51 types..),VC10,WESX
User currently offlineGulfstream650 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4030 times:

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 4):

It's the wrong side of London. Almost every Briton complains about the M25 as it is and "Boris" island would be almost 100 % reliant upon the road which is affectionately known as Britain's biggest car park/lot.



I don't proclaim to be the best pilot in the world but I'm safe
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3761 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3591 times:

It's pretty futile to try and build a new airport in a remote area without building a dedicated transportation network to and from it.

And you're just building yourself a new problem.
Once it's built with a fresh new motorway and shiny new railway, promoters will start building residences around it, people will invest in cheap real estate within excellent connection to London. And right as they finish furnishing the place up and forget why the place was so cheap, they'll hear a BA A380 landing from HKG at 5:30 am and immediately start an neighborhood association which will protest the abusive noise pollution from this obnoxious big airport someone built near their houses...



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinejumpjets From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2012, 818 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3562 times:

Given recent events in NYC I wonder how people would respond to building an airport in the middle of the Thames Estuary - I know SE England isn't exactly prone to hurricanes, but how often has the Thames barrier had to close because of serious flooding threats - so any low lying development in the Thames estuary has to be vulnerable to flooding.

User currently offlineba319-131 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 8541 posts, RR: 54
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3447 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Building a new runway at LHR is the cheapest, option, it is the easiest option, BAA already own pretty much all of the land where is is mooted to go, plus it will be the option with the least invironmental option.

If Boris Island were to be built, LHR would have to be closed for the majors to go there, it's just too far away from London and the rest of the UK where LHR passengers who drive travel to/from.

Expanding LHR is the only real answer, I don't know why we don't just hold a national referendum on it, I'm sure this would provide the answer once and for all.



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 offlineCaptainKramer From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2012, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3425 times:

Boris Island, more like Fantasy Island, "de plane, de plane!"

The only way Boris Thames Estuary Airport is going to see the light of day is if another round of Quantitative Easing is issued by the Bank of England and a substantial portion of that money, which is literally created out of thin air, is directed towards this massive Civil works project.

However as the Goverment is so fond of declaring ad nauseum, there is no money left (except to build a high speed rail service to Birminham costing a cool £20 billion) hence the endless rounds of cuts to public services. The last 2 rounds of QE did nothing to stimulate the economy, the irony is that the U.K. had it's first growth since 2008 in the last quarter, strangely the Government were happy to attribute this to the Summer Olympics, which was largely as a result of a large portion of the modest £9 Billion budget spent under the Labour Governments tenure. I say modest because QE2 alone was a staggering £350 billion.

The cheapest option for any growth in air traffic in the South East on offer at the moment is to build a third runway. Where? That all depends on it's placement, which will cause the least political damage to the Tories when the decision is finally made, provided they're still in power.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11655 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3411 times:

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 6):
When it comes to the 3rd runway at LHR, I'm not sure it is even true to say that only "Some of this ...." is political. The issue is mostly political and, sadly, has little to do with aviation, business or British competitiveness.

I think you misunderstood me, I was referring specifically to the recent Johnson/Cameron comments and that they are likely to be motivated by party politics, not politics in general.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12466 posts, RR: 37
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3331 times:

Quoting ba319-131 (Reply 10):
Building a new runway at LHR is the cheapest, option, it is the easiest option, BAA already own pretty much all of the land where is is mooted to go, plus it will be the option with the least invironmental option.

I agree with this; we should also bear in mind - and it should be made clear to this new committee - that the technology is available to allow acft to descend and climb quickly, thus minimising the impact on local communities; even today's aircraft - as seen at LCY, can do this; what will be available in 2020 (which is probably the earliest date - and still optimistic - by which new runway capacity would be available). There are lots of new, small acft around and all could be certified for LCY-type descents. The SIDs and STARs could be modified to "spread the burden".

It is significant to point out that what LHR needs is NOT a full length runway; if it were, it would be far harder to sell (not that it's easy now!), because obviously large heavy acft don't have quite the agility of smaller, short haul jets; you're not going to get an A380 doing a 5 degree descent!

Boris Island on the other hand will need to be a four-full length runway airport, with all that goes with that. OK, it will be offshore, but again - unless they have Kai Tak style approaches and departures (please, please!!), it will have an impact on communities around east London and the coast.


User currently offlinedavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7378 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3212 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ba319-131 (Reply 10):
If Boris Island were to be built, LHR would have to be closed for the majors to go there

Boris seems to think LHR will be a viable airport with 25 million pax a year. So which airlines is he going to forcibly remove to his environmental wreck of an idea?


User currently offlinebluesky73 From UK - England, joined Oct 2012, 322 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3096 times:

Maybe by time someone has the backbone and makes a decision we will probably be looking at vertical takeoff airliners and not need a runway......in the next century.

Wherever the next runway or airport goes is not going to be popular but LHR is best option I my opinion as people in West London, Middlesex are already used to high volume aircraft traffic. Sorry to insult any people living in some parts very close to LHR, i mean within third runway footprint to Heathrow but some areas are run down and relocating them will be beneficial to homeowners and I still believe overall this is cheaper than other options at other airports (with adding transport infrastructure). Plus Heathrow is already supported by thousands of local aviation workers, save relocating people to Thames estuary or another expanded airport.

Sadly all, I think we will be discussing this for next 20 years on here,... Just hope someone makes decision.


User currently offlineGCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3096 times:

I hadn't seen this mentioned here, but even Cardiff CWL is getting in on the "Heathrow expansion" act:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-20154592

"Transport experts and entrepreneurs" have developed a £250m plan to turn it into Heathrow's Atlantic terminal.
An expanded Cardiff Airport, to be called Western Gateway, aims to attract international fliers who can be transported to London via high speed rail within an hour. Unsurprisingly, they are being very dismissive of Boris Island.

Where on earth do people get these ideas from? "London (Western Gateway) Airport - CWL" - it sometimes seems that every in the Southern UK is trying to get the London tag added to it.

And we all thought Hahn was a long way from Frankfurt ....  



Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A388,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,B462,(..51 types..),VC10,WESX
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6651 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3000 times:

What is funny about all the alternative propositions is that there is always an assumption that it would be easier to do, with less opposition. When in fact every new airport or export expansion in Western Europe is bound to face considerable opposition.

And of course a new airport + new roads + new train line is going to get 10 times the opposition to LHR R3.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11613 posts, RR: 61
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2953 times:

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 4):
A third runway would be a short term measure only. Boris Island is the only sane route with four runways possibly more.

If a new, purpose-built airport and ground connection infrastructure wasn't inevitably going to be mired in endless debates, reviews, discussions, reports, committees, environmental impact assessments, political hearings and litigation for literally decades, I would agree with you.

But considering the way these things tend to go in the U.K., and considering that even if a "Boris Island" concept were to be "approved" tomorrow, it would probably be literally decades before the first plane landed there, the whole concept of "short term" vs "long term" begins to lose its meaning. An entirely new airport would realistically probably not be operational within the lifetime of many of the people today making these decisions.

If the choice today is either a new airport in 2035 or a third runway at Heathrow in 2020, I think the answer - for the U.K. economy if nothing else - is obvious. The U.K. economy simply cannot afford to wait that long for more capacity in the southeast of England. It seems - at least to me - like a third runway at Heathrow is a plausible "interim" (i.e., 20-30 years) solution.


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7531 posts, RR: 17
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2896 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 18):
But considering the way these things tend to go in the U.K., and considering that even if a "Boris Island" concept were to be "approved" tomorrow, it would probably be literally decades before the first plane landed there

Perhaps surprisingly this could be an optimistic view.

Following the rejection of the Roskill Commission proposals for a new airport in North Buckinghamshire in the late 1960s, the first of the many proposals to build a Thames Estuary airport - at that time at Foulness / Maplin Sands - was formally approved by the British Government on 26 April 1971. Here is a link to the relevant section of Hansard, the official proceedings of Parliament, confirming this:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/l...third-london-airport-foulness-site

This was what the Government Minister said then:

"The Government accepts the unanimous recommendation of the Commission that a third London Airport will be needed and that the first runway should be operational by about 1980. It considers that additional airport capacity is required in the South-East, not only to meet the inevitable increase in air traffic now foreseen but also to bring relief at the earliest practicable date to the noise and environmental problems created by the existing airports in the region."

Seems familiar?

That was more than 42 years ago. And what happened? Absolutely nothing.

Since then there has been a lot more hot air and several steps backwards over commercial air transport development Today we have the same number of commercial runways in south east England as we did after Queen Elizabeth formally opened the new metalled runway at LGW in July 1958. And even then LGW had operated as a grass strip aerodrome for twenty years. Also note that the newer LCY runway is numerically balanced by the closure of 23/05 at LHR.

The opening of the LGW runway was over half a century ago. It was well before the age of mass business and holiday air travel. Indeed it was before the first section of the M1 Motorway, the UK's first Motorway other than the short Preston By-pass (now part of the M6). Then the MI started at what is now Junction 5 (Watford) and ended at Junction 18 (Rugby). This section.was opened on 2 November 1959.
.


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2818 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2821 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 19):
Also note that the newer LCY runway is numerically balanced by the closure of 23/05 at LHR.

Specious as the crosswind runway did not add capacity, merely provided resilience that is now unnecessary in this age when plane can land with more than 40kt blowing across the their wing.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2669 times:

But who cares what these supremely irrelevant failing politicians have to say? They are both on a fast-track to political oblivion.

The PM is an irrelevance because he failed to win the last election from opposition, falling 20 seats short of a parliamentary majority, since which time his party has lost around 35% of its support. He presides over the archetypal lame-duck one-term government.

As for Johnson, his posh-boy buffoonery makes him even less electable outside the southeast of England than PM Cameron.

All in all neither of these individuals stands any chance whatsoever of being in government when the decisions about London's future airports are taken. So it's all hot air. It's more likely that Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi will be in the UK government when aviation policy is decided than this pair.


User currently offlineneveragain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2655 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 18):

But considering the way these things tend to go in the U.K., and considering that even if a "Boris Island" concept were to be "approved" tomorrow, it would probably be literally decades before the first plane landed there, the whole concept of "short term" vs "long term" begins to lose its meaning. An entirely new airport would realistically probably not be operational within the lifetime of many of the people today making these decisions.

If the choice today is either a new airport in 2035 or a third runway at Heathrow in 2020, I think the answer - for the U.K. economy if nothing else - is obvious. The U.K. economy simply cannot afford to wait that long for more capacity in the southeast of England. It seems - at least to me - like a third runway at Heathrow is a plausible "interim" (i.e., 20-30 years) solution.

I generally agree with the sentiments expressed above, namely the idea that there needs to be both a short-term and a long-term solution to this issue. So far I have heard the following major ideas proposed for additional capacity in the southeast of England:

1. Third runway at Heathrow
2. Westward expansion of Heathrow and four-runway development
3. Second runway at Gatwick (with or without high-speed rail link to Heathrow)
4. Thames Estuary four-runway airport (Boris Island)
5. Expansion of Stansted (second runway as was being pursued by BAA prior to 2009, or three new runways for a total of four as was mentioned in a recent speech by Daniel Moynan -- special advisor to Boris Johnson on aviation)
6. High-speed rail link between Birmingham BHX and Heathrow
7. A few other miscellaneous ideas, including Cardiff, new airport in Luton vicinity, etc.

Of the above, only three options really would provide adequate airport facilities in a single location to allow for a proper international transfer hub, which is what is making the current UK debate different from those in the recent past regarding aviation capacity. They are (2), (4), and (5). I believe this concept of a dual-airport hub is a non-starter(despite what DL may be attempting with LGA-JFK) if a British hub were to compete with its major continental and, to a lesser extent, gulf competitors.

I believe any of the options above is at least twenty years away, which suggests that a short-term measure is required to relieve some of the immediate stress. Small measures like new air traffic control technology and mixed-mode at Heathrow are not likely to be enough, so the third runway would likely be required. The sooner the UK government can expedite this conclusion the better...and I believe waiting until 2015 is a silly political miscalculation of stakeholders' patience on these issues.


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7531 posts, RR: 17
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2653 times:

Quoting neveragain (Reply 22):
So far I have heard the following major ideas proposed for additional capacity in the southeast of England:

Additionally it was reported last month that a planning application would be submitted this month to expand London Luton Airport:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-19622284

The Thames Estuary (Boris Island) proposal (4 above) was for an airport to be built on an artificial island at sea near Shiverring Sands off the Kent coast north east of Whitsatable. It dates back to 2008 and, reflecting Boris's position as Mayor of London, is located further from any of his electorate's homes than any other proposal.

The latest proposal for the Thames Estuary is for the Thames Hub - a combined airport / sea port to be built significantly nearer London partially on the Isle of Grain and the Hoo Peninsula and partially on an over-sea platform (like Chek Lap Kok and Doha International). The proposal for this solution was made by Foster & Partners (responsible for LHR T5) and was made almost exactly a year ago on 2 November 2011. Here is a link to their document:

http://www.fosterandpartners.com/ThamesHub/PDF/Thames_Hub_vision.pdf

The latest proposal is for a new, four runway Luton Airport. It was unveiled last month:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...d-be-englands-airport-8224387.html

I will not go into details on the numerous other proposals, ranging from turning Northolt Airport (6 miles north of LHR) into LHR's third runway (which in practical terms is a non-starter) to the various other relatively recent Thames Estuary proposals including Cliffe (2002) and Isle of Sheppey (also 2002).

However it should not be forgotten that by going to mixed mode operations a very significant increase in operational capacity at LHR could be achieved virtually tomorrow with hardly any expenditure. Here it is suggested that a 25 per cent capacity increase could be achieved:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-increase-in-capacity-7876755.html

However my understanding is that around 18 per cent is more likely.

Finally there is aircraft size. Until last Saturday week (27 October) LHR operations included the occasional EMB135 BD MAN-LHR-MAN rotation and numerous BD EMB145 rotations between LHR and ABZ, EDI, HAJ and MAN. When BA discontinued the former BD timetable effective 28 October and returned the wet leased Embraers to British Midland Regional (which IAG sold last May) a small but significant increase in LHR passenger capacity was obtained.


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...
SQ To End 747 At LHR posted Wed Mar 4 2009 02:31:10 by Amciver
BAA To Rebuild Terminal 2 At LHR posted Fri Nov 11 2005 00:51:40 by Willyj
Finnair To Use T5 At LHR? posted Mon Feb 28 2005 15:40:21 by Richardw
Where To Take Photos At LHR? posted Wed Dec 24 2003 18:36:45 by Vywh
BA To Use T5 At LHR posted Thu Nov 6 2003 13:25:58 by Aussie747
Concorde Open To Public Rumour At LHR posted Mon Oct 6 2003 22:29:59 by EZYAirbus
UA To Move Terminals At Lhr? posted Fri Dec 13 2002 23:06:59 by Arsenal@LHR
Place To Leave Luggage At Lhr? posted Thu Jun 27 2002 17:47:32 by PRM
New Threat To UK Domestics At LHR posted Tue Jan 29 2008 14:04:41 by Bmiexpat
BA Likely To Add New/ex LHR Aircraft At LGW posted Tue Oct 30 2012 18:04:36 by jet72uk