In the Conservative manifesto launched today it looks like they are committing to go ahead with Heathrow expansion:

We are investing to reduce travel time and cost, increase capacity and attract investment here in the UK. We will continue our programme of strategic national investments, including High Speed 2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and the expansion of Heathrow Airport – and we will ensure that these great projects do as much as possible to develop the skills and careers of British workers

https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/mani ... to2017.pdf

Can't see anyone other than the Conservatives winning the election, so it seems that a new runway at Heathrow is going to happen at last. Very sensible to squeeze it in, in a low-key fashion, while everyone is thinking about Brexit.

A good time for them to bury bad news. Looks like it'll be a Green protest vote for me in June.

winterlight wrote:

A good time for them to bury bad news. Looks like it'll be a Green protest vote for me in June.

Some aviation enthusiast you are then...

winterlight wrote:

A good time for them to bury bad news. Looks like it'll be a Green protest vote for me in June.

I'm not sure which is stranger, that you believe it's bad news or that making a "green protest vote" will make any difference.

TC957 wrote:

winterlight wrote:

A good time for them to bury bad news. Looks like it'll be a Green protest vote for me in June.

Some aviation enthusiast you are then...

Believe it or not, even for aviation enthusiasts, there is often more to life than planes and expanding aviation at all costs, and grown ups may be able to appreciate that overall that may not necessarily be a good thing for society. It shows a mature mind if someone can accept that despite their own preference, there may be other sides to the debate that also deserve a hearing, rather than just 'I WANT I WANT I WANT'.

For example air pollution levels around LHR are are obscene and cause a real effect on people's health, including many premature deaths. I'm sure if terrorist incidents were killing people every year in the area you would take notice, so perhaps that should make you think too. Unless they can sort that out I think they should proceed very cautiously with expansion.

Heathrow is a mess because of the way it's gradually been built, it's in absolutely the wrong place given the prevailing winds so landing traffic makes a procession over one of the most densely populated parts of the world which isn't ideal. If only we could ever show a bit of imagination.

scbriml wrote:

winterlight wrote:

A good time for them to bury bad news. Looks like it'll be a Green protest vote for me in June.

I'm not sure which is stranger, that you believe it's bad news or that making a "green protest vote" will make any difference.

Its a bit sad you would mock somene for choosing to vote with their consicence, and very sad that in our electoroal system despite many many people voting green, they get virtually no representation. That's what I consider strange.

Planetalk wrote:

Its a bit sad you would mock somene for choosing to vote with their consicence

Wasn't intended to be mocking and a slip of the mouse has been corrected.

speedbored wrote:

In the Conservative manifesto launched today it looks like they are committing to go ahead with Heathrow expansion:

We are investing to reduce travel time and cost, increase capacity and attract investment here in the UK. We will continue our programme of strategic national investments, including High Speed 2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and the expansion of Heathrow Airport – and we will ensure that these great projects do as much as possible to develop the skills and careers of British workers

https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/mani ... to2017.pdf

Can't see anyone other than the Conservatives winning the election, so it seems that a new runway at Heathrow is going to happen at last. Very sensible to squeeze it in, in a low-key fashion, while everyone is thinking about Brexit.

I will believe it when I see it.

winterlight wrote:

A good time for them to bury bad news. Looks like it'll be a Green protest vote for me in June.

If the UK does not allow for more runways and expansion it will become an aviation backwater. Both LHR and LGW should be expanded.

I doubt that London Heathrow will ever become a backwater.


ps - see Yogi Berra

Let's wait and see who does win, either way the new Sydney runway will probably be up and running before LHR's.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I doubt that London Heathrow will ever become a backwater.


ps - see Yogi Berra

For non-US readers, I'm guessing the (paraphrased) line is "Nobody goes there any more because it's too crowded".

Planetalk wrote:

If only we could ever show a bit of imagination.

Yeah, good luck with that. I think over the last who-knows-how-many years, there have been countless other options to the third runway at LHR presented.
What did they miss?

Planetalk wrote:

For example air pollution levels around LHR are are obscene and cause a real effect on people's health, including many premature deaths. I'm sure if terrorist incidents were killing people every year in the area you would take notice, so perhaps that should make you think too. Unless they can sort that out I think they should proceed very cautiously with expansion.

How much of that population density near the airport was developed after LHR was established as the primary airport in the 1940s? (im honestly asking, i dont know.) if it was significantly developed after the airport, then blame the developers and people who chose to live near the airport, not the airport itself. If, not then you have a very valid point, though nothing wrong with valuing health above expansion, my point is for many living near major airports, it was a choixe made knowing the airport was there. Also, whats the better alternative, expanding LHR or subjugating another area to a newly built airport? Personally i cant stand whining about something that already existed when a person chose to live near that place, which is very common here in the US.

Edited for clarity.

I bet there is still 2 runways in 10 years time. They should just go for a second runway in Gatwick. Regardless of whether it's better or not, it's easier and more realistic.

There seems to be more opposition to building a couple of miles of new runway at LHR than ripping up 200+ miles of countryside to put HS2 in. I suspect more homes will have to be demolished for HS2 as well than any LHR R3.

I don't see this thread lasting long. But I also don't see how they will still be able to get major projects like this done so long as Brexit is going to continue to gum up the works and May continues to spout off her slogans without much of a detailed plan.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I doubt that London Heathrow will ever become a backwater.


ps - see Yogi Berra

No, it won't become an aviation backwater. And neither will expansion result in an environmental catastrophe. Some of the strawman arguments here are pretty far removed from reality.

sagechan wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

For example air pollution levels around LHR are are obscene and cause a real effect on people's health, including many premature deaths. I'm sure if terrorist incidents were killing people every year in the area you would take notice, so perhaps that should make you think too. Unless they can sort that out I think they should proceed very cautiously with expansion.

How much of that population density near the airport was developed after LHR was established as the primary airport in the 1940s? (im honestly asking, i dont know.) if it was significantly developed after the airport, then blame the developers and people who chose to live near the airport, not the airport itself. If, not then you have a very valid point, though nothing wrong with valuing health above expansion, my point is for many living near major airports, it was a choixe made knowing the airport was there. Also, whats the better alternative, expanding LHR or subjugating another area to a newly built airport? Personally i cant stand whining about something that already existed when a person chose to live near that place, which is very common here in the US.

Edited for clarity.

Erm, the population density I'm talking about is greater London! London is a very densely populated area, that because of where LHR is and the prevailing winds has to be passed over by most traffic arriving at LHR. That is pretty unusual for a major airport. And yes, I do believe the city of London existed before heathrow

The SE of England and the UK is a very densely populated area. Believe it or not, given that Heathrow is very close to a very densely populated area, there will be a lot of people living there. The airport also needs people to work there. It's really so lazy to just say 'well they knew when they moved there'. Yes, and without them the airport wouldn't be able to function. People may live there for many reasons, for work, because house prices are lower, not everyone can afford to choose their ideal home without any trade offs. And most of these people don't whine. Their choice to live near an airport does not mean that they deserve to suffer ill health, how callous. That's no different to saying someone in a terrorist attack 'well they knew when they got on a plane it could happen, they shouldn't fly if they don't like it'. It's ridiculous. The area around heathrow is in breach of the law, and I don't think aviation is that special it should just be allowed to carry on regardless of its affect on people's health. it affects a lot more than just those in the immediate vicinity.

As for claims about Heathrow becoming a backwater or whatever it's plainly nonsense. Runways at Gatwick and stansted can be built far far more quickly and cheaply. You can put another two at Stansted and build a high speed rail line to London and you'll probably be done before they start at Heathrow.

This is good news and I say this as somebody who has a relative that's CHOSEN to move within 3 miles (and directly under the flightpath close to Wraysbury) of Heathrow and as an enthusiast. There are people who live near to the airport who are fine with the noise, they accept it. There are people moving within the airport boundary knowing that as technology advances, so does improvements in fuel efficiency and noise. There are people who live near the airport who comment on aircraft being quieter than the one that flew before it. Has anybody had a 787 or A320Neo fly over them lately? How about a CSeries or Airbus A350?

A lot of this resistance is by those living in the West of London, wealthy, affluent, NIMBY folk I imagine, that have more time on their hands to campaign and complain. Not forgetting it (Heathrow expansion) being a political football by the Greens and Lib Dems and Labour (who have questionable policies when it comes to the environment). The elected government just needs to get on with it and as for Brexit, I can only imagine this would speed up the process and it would limit ties with the EU with the UK managing its affairs with limited outside interference.

Maybe this will set an example to others for airports operating at full capacity.

TC957 wrote:

Some aviation enthusiast you are then...

There is a bit more at stake in this election than aviation.

Live in Feltham, air is cleaner than Zone 1. London suffers from slow moving diesel more than aircraft. Aircraft are getting way quieter, 787s and A350s barely register and even the A380 is louder reversing thrust than on finals.

@planetalk airports exist in a commercial and competitive market, there's far less bang for your buck destroying acres of greenery than redeveloping the less glam parts of Harlingdon! STN was a white elephant when it was built as London third airport in the late 80s and it has been bastardised into a Ryanair much-cheapness facility, so far from Norman Fosters vision! LHR has needed another runway since 1977, STN and LGW are red herrings thrown by people who just refuse to see how the market really works.

PM wrote:

TC957 wrote:

Some aviation enthusiast you are then...

There is a bit more at stake in this election than aviation.

Yes it is - it's about making the UK much more efficient pro-Brexit as a place to do business with and in. It's about the UK having a transport policy to be proud of. LHR R3 is just a part of it. R3 would REDUCE noise and pollution, as aircraft won't be stacking so much coming in to land nor waiting in long queue's for take off.

I've often thought the best option was the estuary concept and a thoroughly modern clean slate airport

Revelation wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I doubt that London Heathrow will ever become a backwater.

ps - see Yogi Berra

For non-US readers, I'm guessing the (paraphrased) line is "Nobody goes there any more because it's too crowded".

I think the reference was to "it ain't over till it's over" ( ref: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34324865 )...

LOL, I had in mind the first, but great retort!

skipness1E wrote:

Live in Feltham, air is cleaner than Zone 1. London suffers from slow moving diesel more than aircraft. Aircraft are getting way quieter, 787s and A350s barely register and even the A380 is louder reversing thrust than on finals.

@planetalk airports exist in a commercial and competitive market, there's far less bang for your buck destroying acres of greenery than redeveloping the less glam parts of Harlingdon! STN was a white elephant when it was built as London third airport in the late 80s and it has been bastardised into a Ryanair much-cheapness facility, so far from Norman Fosters vision! LHR has needed another runway since 1977, STN and LGW are red herrings thrown by people who just refuse to see how the market really works.

I'd say Norman Foster refused to see how the market really works when he designed Stansted. The way it has evolved is the way it suits the market. Same to Gatwick and all the smaller London airports like Luton and Southend. The market isn't Heathrow alone, there is a market for secondary airports too! London is too big to be served by one airport and some airlines prefer to use smaller cheaper airports further away from the city because they find Heathrow too expensive. You can't put all your cards on Heathrow.

Obviously when Heathrow was designed in the 1940s people had whole other ideas about the future of aviation, they never predicted the scale it would grow to. Back then planes were much smaller and there were fewer of them. Heathrow was big enough for that, but they put it in the wrong place. They put it in a place where it can't grow.

The only long term solution is to build a whole new London airport in another place that replaces Heathrow as a key hub airport and scale down Heathrow to a regional airport or even tear it down completely. But even then there'd still be a need for secondary airports because, as I said, London is too big to be served by one airport.

Patrickz89 it's not the "only solution", it was looked at and dismissed as one of the least credible options. STN wasn't built by the market it was a (almost) new build airport for London built by Government Policy. The market took one look, tried it and said no. BAA gave it to Ryanair for pennies and of course it became a short haul loco field.
I am well aware London needs more than one airport as I spend way too much time at most of them.

To be clear, no serious person believe there is anywhere sensible to build a new London airport.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

For non-US readers, I'm guessing the (paraphrased) line is "Nobody goes there any more because it's too crowded".

I think the reference was to "it ain't over till it's over" ( ref: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34324865 )...

LOL, I had in mind the first, but great retort!

Well played. I actually thought of that one first too, but the backwater changed my mind.

Zachbt wrote:

I've often thought the best option was the estuary concept and a thoroughly modern clean slate airport

I have more chance of becoming pope and I'm not a catholic.

Planetalk wrote:

sagechan wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

For example air pollution levels around LHR are are obscene and cause a real effect on people's health, including many premature deaths. I'm sure if terrorist incidents were killing people every year in the area you would take notice, so perhaps that should make you think too. Unless they can sort that out I think they should proceed very cautiously with expansion.

How much of that population density near the airport was developed after LHR was established as the primary airport in the 1940s? (im honestly asking, i dont know.) if it was significantly developed after the airport, then blame the developers and people who chose to live near the airport, not the airport itself. If, not then you have a very valid point, though nothing wrong with valuing health above expansion, my point is for many living near major airports, it was a choixe made knowing the airport was there. Also, whats the better alternative, expanding LHR or subjugating another area to a newly built airport? Personally i cant stand whining about something that already existed when a person chose to live near that place, which is very common here in the US.

Edited for clarity.

Erm, the population density I'm talking about is greater London! London is a very densely populated area, that because of where LHR is and the prevailing winds has to be passed over by most traffic arriving at LHR. That is pretty unusual for a major airport. And yes, I do believe the city of London existed before heathrow

The SE of England and the UK is a very densely populated area. Believe it or not, given that Heathrow is very close to a very densely populated area, there will be a lot of people living there. The airport also needs people to work there. It's really so lazy to just say 'well they knew when they moved there'. Yes, and without them the airport wouldn't be able to function. People may live there for many reasons, for work, because house prices are lower, not everyone can afford to choose their ideal home without any trade offs. And most of these people don't whine. Their choice to live near an airport does not mean that they deserve to suffer ill health, how callous. That's no different to saying someone in a terrorist attack 'well they knew when they got on a plane it could happen, they shouldn't fly if they don't like it'. It's ridiculous. The area around heathrow is in breach of the law, and I don't think aviation is that special it should just be allowed to carry on regardless of its affect on people's health. it affects a lot more than just those in the immediate vicinity.

As for claims about Heathrow becoming a backwater or whatever it's plainly nonsense. Runways at Gatwick and stansted can be built far far more quickly and cheaply. You can put another two at Stansted and build a high speed rail line to London and you'll probably be done before they start at Heathrow.

Ah, well i thought you were referring to the aera around LHR specifically. Though i'd say London has a bigger issue with automotive pollution than aviation pollution.

Planetalk wrote:

sagechan wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

For example air pollution levels around LHR are are obscene and cause a real effect on people's health, including many premature deaths. I'm sure if terrorist incidents were killing people every year in the area you would take notice, so perhaps that should make you think too. Unless they can sort that out I think they should proceed very cautiously with expansion.

How much of that population density near the airport was developed after LHR was established as the primary airport in the 1940s? (im honestly asking, i dont know.) if it was significantly developed after the airport, then blame the developers and people who chose to live near the airport, not the airport itself. If, not then you have a very valid point, though nothing wrong with valuing health above expansion, my point is for many living near major airports, it was a choixe made knowing the airport was there. Also, whats the better alternative, expanding LHR or subjugating another area to a newly built airport? Personally i cant stand whining about something that already existed when a person chose to live near that place, which is very common here in the US.

Edited for clarity.

Erm, the population density I'm talking about is greater London! London is a very densely populated area, that because of where LHR is and the prevailing winds has to be passed over by most traffic arriving at LHR. That is pretty unusual for a major airport. And yes, I do believe the city of London existed before heathrow

The SE of England and the UK is a very densely populated area. Believe it or not, given that Heathrow is very close to a very densely populated area, there will be a lot of people living there. The airport also needs people to work there. It's really so lazy to just say 'well they knew when they moved there'. Yes, and without them the airport wouldn't be able to function. People may live there for many reasons, for work, because house prices are lower, not everyone can afford to choose their ideal home without any trade offs. And most of these people don't whine. Their choice to live near an airport does not mean that they deserve to suffer ill health, how callous. That's no different to saying someone in a terrorist attack 'well they knew when they got on a plane it could happen, they shouldn't fly if they don't like it'. It's ridiculous. The area around heathrow is in breach of the law, and I don't think aviation is that special it should just be allowed to carry on regardless of its affect on people's health. it affects a lot more than just those in the immediate vicinity.

As for claims about Heathrow becoming a backwater or whatever it's plainly nonsense. Runways at Gatwick and stansted can be built far far more quickly and cheaply. You can put another two at Stansted and build a high speed rail line to London and you'll probably be done before they start at Heathrow.

And you think that all those planes holding pattern over London, due to the insanely tightly spaced landing slots, is good for air quality?

kaitak744 wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

sagechan wrote:

How much of that population density near the airport was developed after LHR was established as the primary airport in the 1940s? (im honestly asking, i dont know.) if it was significantly developed after the airport, then blame the developers and people who chose to live near the airport, not the airport itself. If, not then you have a very valid point, though nothing wrong with valuing health above expansion, my point is for many living near major airports, it was a choixe made knowing the airport was there. Also, whats the better alternative, expanding LHR or subjugating another area to a newly built airport? Personally i cant stand whining about something that already existed when a person chose to live near that place, which is very common here in the US.

Edited for clarity.

Erm, the population density I'm talking about is greater London! London is a very densely populated area, that because of where LHR is and the prevailing winds has to be passed over by most traffic arriving at LHR. That is pretty unusual for a major airport. And yes, I do believe the city of London existed before heathrow

The SE of England and the UK is a very densely populated area. Believe it or not, given that Heathrow is very close to a very densely populated area, there will be a lot of people living there. The airport also needs people to work there. It's really so lazy to just say 'well they knew when they moved there'. Yes, and without them the airport wouldn't be able to function. People may live there for many reasons, for work, because house prices are lower, not everyone can afford to choose their ideal home without any trade offs. And most of these people don't whine. Their choice to live near an airport does not mean that they deserve to suffer ill health, how callous. That's no different to saying someone in a terrorist attack 'well they knew when they got on a plane it could happen, they shouldn't fly if they don't like it'. It's ridiculous. The area around heathrow is in breach of the law, and I don't think aviation is that special it should just be allowed to carry on regardless of its affect on people's health. it affects a lot more than just those in the immediate vicinity.

As for claims about Heathrow becoming a backwater or whatever it's plainly nonsense. Runways at Gatwick and stansted can be built far far more quickly and cheaply. You can put another two at Stansted and build a high speed rail line to London and you'll probably be done before they start at Heathrow.

And you think that all those planes holding pattern over London, due to the insanely tightly spaced landing slots, is good for air quality?

No, just not as bad as cars. Plus the planes will be going somewhere near London no matter what.

There are a ton of practical considerations looking at the SE of England. There isn't much if any room to do a fresh build airport. While fascinating, the estuary concept is insanely expensive and there doesn't appear to be much buy-in to the concept.

The flow of the market for connections and high end business travel has been and continues to be LHR. It certainly makes sense to do a major expansion at a place like STN where there is room but only if there are sufficient high speed rail links and other infrastructure to support the expansion.

Even if it took place, is the notion to somehow get some tenants from LHR moved to STN? How would that be accomplished? One World airlines won't think about it since their UK partner (BA) is based at LHR. Perhaps the Star Alliance airlines since VS is now part of Sky Team along with the unattached flag carriers?

That there needs to be at least one if not two or three additional runways at one or two of the airports really isn't up for debate. The problem revolves around environmental concerns and political cowardice to pull the trigger on a bold option that would carry the UK out approximately 50 years into the future which would support economic growth and help the UK continue its role as a economic hub (even after Brexit).

The Uk need all of them ... 3rd runway at LHR, 2nd runway at LGW, 2nd runway at STN, HS2 and 3. What the country does not need is ... Brexit.

Personally as a South East England, just outside the M25, near Heathrow, resident, I think England should have a long term plan and governmental commitment to build a 3rd runway at LHR and 2nd runways at STN and LGW. Ultimately this would probably reduce the justification for the existence of LTN and SEN but it would give the SE Region three hub-level airports roughly evenly spaced around the circumference of London (I know LGW & LHR are slightly too close together for all three to be properly evenly spaced). The road and rail links should be focused on connecting to those three airports. It seems to me that there is no way a completely new airport will ever be built (and anyway that would not reduce the requirement for most of the current ones unless it was built somewhere really central, like Hyde Park )

SonomaFlyer wrote:

There are a ton of practical considerations looking at the SE of England. There isn't much if any room to do a fresh build airport. While fascinating, the estuary concept is insanely expensive and there doesn't appear to be much buy-in to the concept.

The flow of the market for connections and high end business travel has been and continues to be LHR. It certainly makes sense to do a major expansion at a place like STN where there is room but only if there are sufficient high speed rail links and other infrastructure to support the expansion.

Even if it took place, is the notion to somehow get some tenants from LHR moved to STN? How would that be accomplished? One World airlines won't think about it since their UK partner (BA) is based at LHR. Perhaps the Star Alliance airlines since VS is now part of Sky Team along with the unattached flag carriers?

That there needs to be at least one if not two or three additional runways at one or two of the airports really isn't up for debate. The problem revolves around environmental concerns and political cowardice to pull the trigger on a bold option that would carry the UK out approximately 50 years into the future which would support economic growth and help the UK continue its role as a economic hub (even after Brexit).

The idea is to move all the air traffic that does not need to be at Heathrow away from Heathrow. Gatwick and Stansted can both do a good job in that. If you expand both of them and invest in high speed connections between the airports and the city you'd probably be cheaper than expanding Heathrow and you'd create more capacity as well. Heathrow can shrink while the total London capacity still grows.

There's also a lot of cargo airlines serving Heathrow. Why does that need to be there? Why can't you move all cargo from Heathrow to other airports? There are plans for reopening Manston Kent airport, initially as a cargo airport. Kent may be too far away from London for passengers, but if you can move all cargo from Heathrow to Manston you'd kill two birds with one stone. You'd make Manston profitable and you'd free capacity at Heathrow for passenger flights.

GCT64 wrote:

Personally as a South East England, just outside the M25, near Heathrow, resident, I think England should have a long term plan and governmental commitment to build a 3rd runway at LHR and 2nd runways at STN and LGW. Ultimately this would probably reduce the justification for the existence of LTN and SEN but it would give the SE Region three hub-level airports roughly evenly spaced around the circumference of London (I know LGW & LHR are slightly too close together for all three to be properly evenly spaced). The road and rail links should be focused on connecting to those three airports. It seems to me that there is no way a completely new airport will ever be built (and anyway that would not reduce the requirement for most of the current ones unless it was built somewhere really central, like Hyde Park )

How about this?



Basically I just cut out Heathrow and pasted it back on another location. In this case near the M11/M25 junction over Stapleford airfield. Just as convenient as the current Heathrow location, but in a much better place if you ask me. Quick and easy access to the city since there is an underground line nearby which can easily be extended to the airport. In either direction of the runways there's pretty much nothing, so sound is not really an issue. Plenty of room for future expansion.

I think the smaller airfields like Luton and Southend still have a place for airlines that do not need hub facilities. Stansted can be converted into a hub and Gatwick also offers hub facilities, but airlines that aim at O/D traffic only are better off at a non-hub airport. This saves space at the hub airports since those airlines don't need to be there.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

The idea is to move all the air traffic that does not need to be at Heathrow away from Heathrow. Gatwick and Stansted can both do a good job in that. If you expand both of them and invest in high speed connections between the airports and the city you'd probably be cheaper than expanding Heathrow and you'd create more capacity as well. Heathrow can shrink while the total London capacity still grows.

There's also a lot of cargo airlines serving Heathrow. Why does that need to be there? Why can't you move all cargo from Heathrow to other airports? There are plans for reopening Manston Kent airport, initially as a cargo airport. Kent may be too far away from London for passengers, but if you can move all cargo from Heathrow to Manston you'd kill two birds with one stone. You'd make Manston profitable and you'd free capacity at Heathrow for passenger flights.

There is no reason to have slots at LHR taken up with cargo flights. I never thought about it before but (wrongly) assumed that dedicated cargo carriers would have already been moved to a different London area airport. That would seem to be a much easier call to make by UK authorities and would free up quite a few slots in the process. Those slots would not be distributed. The airport would remain slot restricted which would benefit the communities around LHR from less noise and pollution from fewer flights.

It would seem that airlines that don't have an alliance with VS or BA should be moved out. There needs to be some practical criteria for choosing those airlines to move unless they got enough volunteers which is unlikely. BA and VS as British carriers should not be made to move. This will please domestic policy makers, politicians local businesses who depend on LHR and those carriers.

Once all of those flights are pulled, look at what is left. It would be most likely those slots "freed" by moving independent and Star Alliance carriers out of LHR would not be awarded to the remaining carriers, at least not yet.

Expand LGW or STN with rail links to London and move those airlines to that airport.

Once this is done, you survey the balance of traffic at the airports around London and see what needs to be done next. Certainly the carriers still at LHR will enjoy the benefits of more flexibility in scheduling their flights and less traffic/crowding/pollution at LHR. Airlines moved to STN (possibly with another runway) or LGW (with another runway) could forge new cross marketing/alliances with those airlines which can benefit that airport and those airlines.

There really is little point in going over all of the same arguments about where airport expansion in the southeast UK should be - the Airports Commission have already done the analysis, made a recommendation, and had that accepted by the government - it will be a third runway at Heathrow.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37760187

Yes, I fully expect a whole load of opposition to it, but I personally believe that the 12-18 months immediately after the general election will be the best opportunity, for a very long time, for the government to make it actually happen:
With a huge majority, they will not need to worry too much about pleasing all of the voters in areas affected by noise as they will be able to pass the required legislation even if significant numbers of their own MPs object.
Post-Brexit, they will be better able to manage the many legal challenges that will be raised without having to worry about EU legislation or the European courts.

If we can't get started on it during the next parliament then I doubt we ever will.

Planetalk wrote:

scbriml wrote:

winterlight wrote:

A good time for them to bury bad news. Looks like it'll be a Green protest vote for me in June.

I'm not sure which is stranger, that you believe it's bad news or that making a "green protest vote" will make any difference.

Its a bit sad you would mock somene for choosing to vote with their consicence, and very sad that in our electoroal system despite many many people voting green, they get virtually no representation. That's what I consider strange.

Would you say the same about UKIP? Who in 2015 had more votes than the greens.

Everyone says build a new airport elsewhere, a where? And b you'll get the same if not more resistance to it than the 3rd runway. Heathrow should have had 3 runways by now. Gatwick should have 2, Stansted 2.

I can see the reasons for the cargo being at LHR, probably because the infrastructure and work force is present.

I think removing airlines from Heathrow that aren't VS or BA aligned are a bit excessive. BA are still slot sitting so there's room for expansion ( Where else will the dreamliners and A350k's that aren't replacing 747 go) and when the agreement with the Irish gov is up they can consolidate a few Irish flights to get some more long haul slots.

Just to inform a couple of previous posters that there are very few pure cargo flights at Heathrow, maybe two a day if that. There are a couple more on Saturday afternoons when there are more slots available. The bulk of London's cargo flights use Stansted.

Heathrow will get the go ahead for one very good reason. No one wants jeremy corbyn to run the country(including me), and as a labour person it pains me to say it and have him lead the party, but this election was over the minute it got announced. The tory's will get in and approve expansion and it will finally go ahead, one positive for me. (Please don't turn this into a politics debate)

I understand the world has a problem with pollution, but stopping a runway being built is not going to solve anything. Cars, trucks and industry causes more pollution per person than planes will ever do. Its like feminists focusing on the UK and USA for equal rights when some women in other countries dont get education or jobs. Just my 2 cents. LHR should get a runway, by doing this they can re-route planes more efficiently, holding patterns will decrease, plane sizes will too as airlines wont need 1 A380 to meet demand (slots) they can get 2 A321s to do the trick.

Arion640 wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

scbriml wrote:

I'm not sure which is stranger, that you believe it's bad news or that making a "green protest vote" will make any difference.

Its a bit sad you would mock somene for choosing to vote with their consicence, and very sad that in our electoroal system despite many many people voting green, they get virtually no representation. That's what I consider strange.

Would you say the same about UKIP? Who in 2015 had more votes than the greens.

Everyone says build a new airport elsewhere, a where? And b you'll get the same if not more resistance to it than the 3rd runway. Heathrow should have had 3 runways by now. Gatwick should have 2, Stansted 2.

I can see the reasons for the cargo being at LHR, probably because the infrastructure and work force is present.

I think removing airlines from Heathrow that aren't VS or BA aligned are a bit excessive. BA are still slot sitting so there's room for expansion ( Where else will the dreamliners and A350k's that aren't replacing 747 go) and when the agreement with the Irish gov is up they can consolidate a few Irish flights to get some more long haul slots.

Of course I would say the same. I may not agree with UKIPs policies, but I fundamentally agree with people's right to vote for them and to be represented. Our system is an absurd relic of a bygone era that leaves us with parties governing with huge majorities and doing what they like without opposition despite the majority of the country not voting for them.

[quote="SonomaFlyer

One World airlines won't think about it since their UK partner (BA) is based at LHR. Perhaps the Star Alliance airlines since VS is now part of Sky Team along with the unattached flag carriers?

.[/quote]

VS are not part of any alliance, they may be 49% owned by Delta but as yet have not committed to joining Skyteam or any other alliance as they also codeshare with various airlines.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I doubt that London Heathrow will ever become a backwater.


ps - see Yogi Berra

Well if it isn't expanded, people who need connections will bypass it and use other hubs. If Heathrow were going to be replaced as a hub for London, that should have happened 20 to 30 years ago. Heathrow now needs to be expanded ASAP and so does Gatwick.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

There's also a lot of cargo airlines serving Heathrow. Why does that need to be there? Why can't you move all cargo from Heathrow to other airports? There are plans for reopening Manston Kent airport, initially as a cargo airport. Kent may be too far away from London for passengers, but if you can move all cargo from Heathrow to Manston you'd kill two birds with one stone. You'd make Manston profitable and you'd free capacity at Heathrow for passenger flights.

There is no reason to have slots at LHR taken up with cargo flights. I never thought about it before but (wrongly) assumed that dedicated cargo carriers would have already been moved to a different London area airport. That would seem to be a much easier call to make by UK authorities and would free up quite a few slots in the process. Those slots would not be distributed. The airport would remain slot restricted which would benefit the communities around LHR from less noise and pollution from fewer flights.

Where on earth do people get the idea that there are lots of pure cargo flights at Heathrow? There really aren't. A huge amount of cargo is handled there, but it is belly cargo on scheduled passenger flights almost exclusively. There are I think just two daily cargo flights out of LHR, in the late evening, at times when passenger demand is minimal.
In fact STN, EMA, and MAN are the three UK airports with the largest number of dedicated cargo flights, all three are MAG-operated airports and no doubt the head of freight marketing at MAG earns his/her keep.

Probably someone will come up with "why don't they use bigger planes" next. Been there, done that. You can spend a day at LHR and see nothing smaller than an A319/73G, apart from the five afternoon or evening flights on KLM Cityhopper F70s or E190s, and some FlyBe Q400s on EDI and ABZ domestics.
Of course if they use significantly bigger planes there will need to be greater separation between movements, so there will be fewer slots.....
But even so, the days of E145s are long gone, and A319s are dwindling in favour of A320/321s.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Well if it isn't expanded, people who need connections will bypass it and use other hubs. If Heathrow were going to be replaced as a hub for London, that should have happened 20 to 30 years ago. Heathrow now needs to be expanded ASAP and so does Gatwick.

But Heathrow can't be expanded. The only solution is to shrink Heathrow and expand Gatwick and Stansted instead so airlines from Heathrow can move to Gatwick or Stansted.