Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UK Transport Committee: LHR Needs A 3d/4th Runways  
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1992 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8020 times:

"We conclude that a third runway at Heathrow is necessary, but also suggest that a four-runway proposal may have merit, especially if expanding to locate two new runways westwards from the current site could curb the noise experienced by people affected under the flight path.


“We conclude that adding new runways to expand a number of other existing airports will not, on its own, provide a long-term solution to the hub capacity problem. We do however encourage Gatwick’s operator to develop a robust business case for their vision of a second runway.


“We reject the notion of linking existing airports by high-speed rail to form a split-hub; the outcome from this would be highly uncompetitive in terms of passenger transfer times compared to competitor hubs overseas."


In the same statement they kill every possible chance of a Thames Estuary Airport :


"Evidence to our inquiry also showed a substantial potential impact on wildlife habitat in the Thames estuary.


“The viability of an estuary hub airport would also require the closure of Heathrow – a course of action that would have unacceptable consequences for individuals, businesses in the vicinity of the existing airport and the local economy."

Source :

http://www.parliament.uk/business/co...ttee/news/as-report---substantive/



Let's see how long takes before we hear something about the LHR neighbours opposed to more runways....

Rgds.
G.

[Edited 2013-05-10 05:44:07]


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9670 posts, RR: 31
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7953 times:

Me wonders if they really get paid for telling the public the obvious.

Reading the discussions in this forum is free of charge and lead to the same result.

What it really needs is a government having the guts to kick-off the necessary, they might even win the next election that way.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinewawaman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7860 times:

Clearly it will take years before anything happens. Why don't they just lift the curfew at LHR and operate one of the runways though the night. This would give immediate benefit, and it is a lot less disruptive than 2 new runways. It is not the ultimate solution clearly, but it must help won't it. What have I missed?

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13437 posts, RR: 100
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7829 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
“We reject the notion of linking existing airports by high-speed rail to form a split-hub; the outcome from this would be highly uncompetitive in terms of passenger transfer times compared to competitor hubs overseas."

Understatement. Look at how much faster consolidated hubs grew in Asia.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 1):
What it really needs is a government having the guts to kick-off the necessary

One could wish.


For some reason no one will put me in charge of the bulldozers clearing the way for a LHR expansion...


Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineWolbo From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 493 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7775 times:

Didn't some other UK committee just recently conclude that London has enough room to grow air traffic without further expansion?

User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1992 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7698 times:

Quoting wawaman (Reply 2):
Why don't they just lift the curfew at LHR and operate one of the runways though the night. This would give immediate benefit, and it is a lot less disruptive than 2 new runways.

And there are other options available, also " a lot less disruptive tan 2 new runways" :

Ex Concorde Pilot Proposal To Boost LHR Capacity (by Gonzalo Mar 12 2013 in Civil Aviation)

What really amazes me is that there is a lot of talking, a lot of papers, studies, polls, parliament committees.... but at the end of the day, no one is actually DOING something about this problem.

Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9670 posts, RR: 31
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7691 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3):

For some reason no one will put me in charge of the bulldozers clearing the way for a LHR expansion...

you'd have to raze the local pubs first to silence opposition.  
Quoting Wolbo (Reply 4):
Didn't some other UK committee just recently conclude that London has enough room to grow air traffic without further expansion?

You establish a panel and get the result you ask for, same with expertises or round tables. Unfortunately, the old German joke about the difference between a round table and an old woman is not translatable.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7751 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7584 times:

Hard to see any real response until Howard Davies reports in 2015.

This is a hot potato that no one wants to touch.


User currently offlineAlpage From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2013, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7540 times:

This is going to be a massive NO from the local councils around Heathrow.

http://www.snapsurveys.com/sol1/swh/surveylogin.asp?k=136240070617

[Edited 2013-05-10 06:58:52]

User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 27245 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7537 times:

Problem with LHR is that there are so many conflicting interests all with equal amounts of power and influence so you have stale mate.

This argument has been going on since I was a kid growing up under the flight path. You could look at local papers going back three decades and see the same topic. If they are going to do it then they need 4 runways and get it done as soon as possible. If any government had any balls they would invoke compulsory acquisitions. Its a land mine though politically.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11686 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7513 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 5):
And there are other options available, also " a lot less disruptive tan 2 new runways" :

Ex Concorde Pilot Proposal To Boost LHR Capacity (by Gonzalo Mar 12 2013 in Civil Aviation)

The disruption would be similar, it's still two new runways.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 5):
What really amazes me is that there is a lot of talking, a lot of papers, studies, polls, parliament committees.... but at the end of the day, no one is actually DOING something about this problem.

This is the UK, things are being done under the surface but it just takes forever.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 7):
Hard to see any real response until Howard Davies reports in 2015.

This is a hot potato that no one wants to touch.

The interim report at the end of this year should give general direction, it would not surprise me if that was enough to make some manifesto changes for one of the major parties.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19244 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7468 times:

Interesting article in The Times a few days ago. I took a photo of it and will mention more relevant bits now:

"What do you do when your main business location, an old city dating back more than 1,000 years, is served by an airport running close to capability that frequently creates grouses among travellers because of delays?

If you're Britain, you avoid a decision, instead setting up independent commission that will not publish its findings until well after the next general election.

Other countries are more forward-looking. They include Turkey, where, over the holiday weekend, a local consortium won a €22.2 billion tender to build and run a new airport in Istanbul. The airport, with six runways, will be able to handle 150 million passengers a year, more than twice as many as Heathrow. It will be operating in 2013, when no doubt Britain will still be arguing about how to expand capacity." How true.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2022 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7370 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 11):
Other countries are more forward-looking. They include Turkey, where, over the holiday weekend, a local consortium won a €22.2 billion tender to build and run a new airport in Istanbul. The airport, with six runways, will be able to handle 150 million passengers a year, more than twice as many as Heathrow. It will be operating in 2013, when no doubt Britain will still be arguing about how to expand capacity." How true.

It's 2018, but I wonder at the destructiveness of it, as it will be built by cutting down much of a large forested area. 658,000 trees to be chopped apparently...try doing that in Western Europe!



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineASA From Bangladesh, joined Dec 2010, 780 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7137 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 11):
Other countries are more forward-looking. They include Turkey, where, over the holiday weekend, a local consortium won a €22.2 billion tender to build and run a new airport in Istanbul. The airport, with six runways, will be able to handle 150 million passengers a year, more than twice as many as Heathrow. It will be operating in 2013, when no doubt Britain will still be arguing about how to expand capacity." How true.

2023, you mean? Outside the cave, we are in 2013 already  


User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19244 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7051 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 12):
It's 2018
Quoting ASA (Reply 13):
2023

Haha. Yes, I meant 2018.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12565 posts, RR: 35
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6976 times:

Cameron is just kicking the can down the runway, principally because his coalition partners, the Lib Dems, won't agree to a new runway at LHR.

It is the best option, the reason being that you already have two full length runways, so any new runway can be just 6-7,000' long and since it will only be used by short haul aircraft, it can involve 5 degree descents and high climbing SIDs, something a heavy widebody could not manage. As the runway will probably not be ready until about 2020-25 (if we're lucky), there is plenty of time for aircraft manufacturers to adjust to the new requirements, which could be set down by the CAA.

Any new facility would have to have at least two (and better still, 3-4) runways, two of which would need to be full length, and all that goes with that - plus having to deal with the tides around the Thames Estuary. At the end of the day, business wants the runway to be at LHR. It is the best place for it.

Sadly, as some have mentioned above, we probably will be having this argument on this site five or ten years for now; the problem is political spinelessness.


User currently offlineflyingthe757 From UK - England, joined Mar 2013, 260 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6950 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
Let's see how long takes before we hear something about the LHR neighbours opposed to more runways....

This is one local that is not opposed...

The thames airport is a joke and we wont see it, makes no sense at all, and if LHR closes, that is the whole of west london affected.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11686 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6903 times:

Quoting flyingthe757 (Reply 16):
Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
Let's see how long takes before we hear something about the LHR neighbours opposed to more runways....

This is one local that is not opposed...

Support might not be as uncommon as people assume. Sure there will be NIMBY's, but with so many of LHR's workforce living in the vicinity, the benefit of expansion may be evident to them and show through.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4049 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6656 times:

Heathrow needed 4 runways about 25 years ago.


Stop pop up ads
User currently offlinecapri From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 452 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6625 times:

I remember when rwy 23/5 was used occasionally during xwind when I was living near LHR 2000-2002, how feasible and what can be done to reopen this rwy, I mean technically regardless of the neighbors concerns, new taxiways layout??? closures of maintenance hangars??????

User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1992 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6516 times:

Quoting flyingthe757 (Reply 16):
This is one local that is not opposed...
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 17):
Support might not be as uncommon as people assume.

That's true fortunately, but usually the supporters remain quiet while the ones fighting against the project do all the noise they can to make the news.
Today, with this subject in the news and a signal in favour of expansion, would be a good time for supporters to express out loud they exist, have a point of view and their own expectations.

Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineflyingthe757 From UK - England, joined Mar 2013, 260 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6442 times:

Quoting capri (Reply 19):
I remember when rwy 23/5 was used occasionally during xwind when I was living near LHR 2000-2002, how feasible and what can be done to reopen this rwy, I mean technically regardless of the neighbors concerns, new taxiways layout??? closures of maintenance hangars??????

Its not there anymore. Part of the new terminal took over, as well as parking.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7488 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5996 times:

Quoting wawaman (Reply 2):
Why don't they just lift the curfew at LHR and operate one of the runways though the night.

In all the other threads on this issue I do not recall if this was ever bought up for a trial basis of say 3 months or so after giving some airlines lead time to see if (a) any interest in late nite / early am arrivals/departures and (b) how the population responds to additional night / early am noise.
Nimby's might actually prefer the additional noise if it puts off major expansion for a few more decades.

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):

“The viability of an estuary hub airport would also require the closure of Heathrow – a course of action that would have unacceptable consequences for individuals, businesses in the vicinity of the existing airport and the local economy."

I still do not put much in this one, if this was the case nothing new would ever be built if relocation to another area was involved.
The basis of the airport is to provide access for travel, by doing its jobs numerous job opertunites are created, its not the other way around.


User currently offlineBA0197 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2011, 328 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5589 times:

These are the problems I see the government arguing over:

1. The government continually questions whether Heathrow is a "Hub Airport" and whether Britain needs one.
2. They consistently bring up the fact that the London Airport System is comprised of 5 London airports.
3. Heathrow is built in a bad area.

My comments to the above:

Seriously?! Is the government really doing this? Of course LHR is a hub airport and it is nessesary for Britain's air transport system. BA (and VA) both have hubs at the airport. BA is the country's flag carrier. Of these "other
London airports", only LCY is within Greater London (hardly a significant aerodrome). Trains to LGW and STN take a minimum of 30 minutes. It is THE ONLY real airport where foreign business travel to/from and will be the only airport of significance in the entire UK. The British economy relies on Heathrow. I often do think the public and government take BA for granted as well. Do they want them to be successful? Do they want to travel to more destinations or be restricted on growth? Yes, Heathrow is built in a bad area. Get over it. It has been pumped with infastructure and chosen, although unknown at the time, to be the main airport of Britain. Other London airports could not adsorb LHR's capacity.

The government ironically lacks the political will power to do something good for the country and they are letting a few locals escalate the issue to include environmentalists. Yes planes do come over London and yes it can be an occasional nuance, but really? Do you actually hear those planes over all the noise that London makes as a normal functioning city. It took 4 years for the government to complete an inquiry to allow T5 to be built, the longest in British history.

I'm sorry, but there needs to be a sacrifice for the greater good of the country or else Britain will continue to shrink in relevance. It is these ridiculous concerns for EVERYONE with a problem that allow the government to become stale.

Sorry if I was forward; I just still cannot believe this is actually a question for the Coalition government.


User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3398 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5102 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 15):
Cameron is just kicking the can down the runway, principally because his coalition partners, the Lib Dems, won't agree to a new runway at LHR.

This just shows the nonsene of UK politics:

Pre 2010 election Labour were in power and supported the expansion
Pre 2010 election Conservatives on principle would support business and expansion

Post 2010 election:

Con in coalition with the LD's suddenly change their minds

i.e a minority party with 10% of MPs is holding the country to ranson! All the while we're falling further and further behind the rest of Europe....


25 nimool : literary cant Wait to see LHR's expansion, it would reduce noise as they could use all three runways for landing and take off as they do with the curr
26 Post contains images RyanairGuru : That was my first thought as well... I agree, but political will (in virtually all Western democracies) is now driven by the next opinion poll. The "
27 Post contains images B707MT : Mate, that's nothing that watching a few episodes of "Yes Minister" or "Yes Prime Minister" wouldn't fix. Mind you, protracted delays can have an up-
28 PanHAM : The discussion here in Frankfurt is a spitting image of what is going on in London, with the exception that we had a state PM who initiated a "mediat
29 Flying Belgian : I've spent a lot of time in LHR this week. God, this airport is really congested. Incredible. It always and will always amaze me to see how ATC people
30 KaiTak747 : The coalition need to man up and press ahead with the third runway/extended runways. All other options have been exhausted and the longer the problem
31 petertenthije : Just offer the following exchange to the tree huggers: in exchange for allowing us to build the runway we promiss them not to publish any more reports
32 Post contains links summa767 : With respect, but this is a totally false statement! It is not because of the coalition that the conservative party have a policy against a third run
33 PanHAM : Again, basd on the FRA experience, make it the 3rd and the 4th runway at the same time. That way Boris can save face as well. You get 2 runways for th
34 Post contains images par13del : Sense of pride, shows that everyone wants in on LHR no matter how congested it is.... So does the City of London actually control the airport and how
35 summa767 : The buck does stop with the elected government, who campaigned for election on a manifesto that contained, among other things, opposition to LHR expa
36 Post contains images BA0197 : How true. It is surprising how accurate that show is. Something, if I may say, only British wit and humour are able to produce. Us over in the USA li
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...
Aer Lingus In Bid To Enter UK Domestic Market(LHR) posted Sun Jul 8 2012 04:10:05 by OA260
UK Transport Secretary Wants Domestic Flights Cut posted Tue Aug 4 2009 12:09:40 by Alasdair1982
UK Transport Minister To Airlines: Stop Winging posted Fri Jul 17 2009 15:42:42 by Danfearn77
EVV Needs To Reconfigure Runways posted Tue Mar 24 2009 15:32:20 by Csturdiv
New Threat To UK Domestics At LHR posted Tue Jan 29 2008 14:04:41 by Bmiexpat
Did Air UK Operate EDI-LHR In 1994? posted Wed Apr 12 2006 18:17:44 by Ba757gla
US/UK Airlines And LHR posted Fri Jun 25 2004 04:04:58 by Pw4460
LHR Needs To Shape Up Or Lose Out. posted Mon Nov 24 2003 13:20:42 by Qantasclub
UK's New Runway/airport Needs posted Wed Oct 23 2002 22:01:47 by BHXviscount
BAA (UK) Could Shelve LHR T5 If Fees Not Increased posted Sun Aug 25 2002 20:30:38 by Singapore_Air