uta999
Topic Author
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 9:21 am

Various Eco groups, the Mayor of London and local councils have lost their legal challenge against LHR 3rd runway. A minor milestone perhaps.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48118100

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c48yr ... -expansion
Your computer just got better
 
BritishB747
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:14 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 10:21 am

uta999 wrote:
Various Eco groups, the Mayor of London and local councils have lost their legal challenge against LHR 3rd runway. A minor milestone perhaps.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48118100

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c48yr ... -expansion


I think you are right with a minor milestone, but at least the Department for Transport doesn't have to go back and re-write the National Policy Statement which is a plus. There can still be legal challenges against the content of the NPS, but the document itself appears to have been constructed in line with due process.

The major environmental issue in the Heathrow area surrounds how people get to and from the airport. The surface transport causes a lot more pollution than the aircraft.
AT5 AT7 AB6 319 320 321 333 33V 343 346 AR8 733 734 736 73G 738 744 752 753 763 77E 77W 788 BET CR7 D10 D38 DHT DH4 E70 E75 E90 F70 J41 M83 S20 SF3
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17355
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 10:27 am

Heathrow has needed a 3rd runway since I first visited London in 1990. I wish one would happen. Alas, it is unlikely. Oh well, thankfully the A321LR/xLR or 797 (if launched) will allow bypass.

Lightsaber
You know nothing John Snow.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8474
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 10:40 am

Well don't count the ducks yet, the ruling did say those in opposition will have other opportunities to make their case about noise, quality of life, etc etc etc.
So it has only just begun, expect additional legal challenges, this is going to be long.
 
wawaman
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 10:48 am

I agree with Lightsaber and par13del... The reality (as I see it) is that this project is pretty much undeliverable for all the reasons already discussed. I wonder what happens when the government and Heathrow Ltd realise this. We could be 10 years from that point, and then we are back at square one again. So the news is that nothing has really changed.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2301
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 10:50 am

lightsaber wrote:
Heathrow has needed a 3rd runway since I first visited London in 1990. I wish one would happen. Alas, it is unlikely. Oh well, thankfully the A321LR/xLR or 797 (if launched) will allow bypass.

Lightsaber



LHR needs 4 runways they should just bite the bullet and build the 4th immediately after opening the 3rd.
 
DobboDobbo
Posts: 834
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:02 am

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 11:01 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Heathrow has needed a 3rd runway since I first visited London in 1990. I wish one would happen. Alas, it is unlikely. Oh well, thankfully the A321LR/xLR or 797 (if launched) will allow bypass.

Lightsaber



LHR needs 4 runways they should just bite the bullet and build the 4th immediately after opening the 3rd.


Given the difficulties (which as noted above will likely block the scheme eventually) and time required to try and get a third runway built, trying to start the process to build a fourth, whilst understandable on one level, would obviously be a mistake.
 
uta999
Topic Author
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 11:23 am

I don't think the DoT and Heathrow say enough about just how much noise / pollution / traffic, is actually caused by the heavy restrictions placed on the existing airport operation. Having just one departure runway available for the whole evening peak, two arrival runways available for only one hour in the morning peak. Both runways should be available for three hours during both busy periods, particularly as easterly departures on 09L are so restricted by the holding point layout.

It all means an average 15-20 delays throughout the day, and double that during the two peaks. That could mean a third runway, subject to limited growth, could actually be cleaner than it is now. Even with more flights. Particularly if further advances in electric cars and better public transport, such as CrossRail begin to have an impact.
Your computer just got better
 
BritishB747
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:14 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 11:35 am

uta999 wrote:
I don't think the DoT and Heathrow say enough about just how much noise / pollution / traffic, is actually caused by the heavy restrictions placed on the existing airport operation. Having just one departure runway available for the whole evening peak, two arrival runways available for only one hour in the morning peak. Both runways should be available for three hours during both busy periods, particularly as easterly departures on 09L are so restricted by the holding point layout.

It all means an average 15-20 delays throughout the day, and double that during the two peaks. That could mean a third runway, subject to limited growth, could actually be cleaner than it is now. Even with more flights. Particularly if further advances in electric cars and better public transport, such as CrossRail begin to have an impact.


This is a key point. More should be made of the environmental benefits of the scheme. I believe Heathrow is trying to encourage employees to arrive by public transport rather than car. As you say Crossrail is coming and should be able to provide a link to Heathrow that is cheaper than the Heathrow Express, but quicker than the Piccadilly Line.

There are wider benefits though as the additional runway capacity could reduce the use of stacks, which in turn reduces the noise and pollution associated with holding aircraft.
AT5 AT7 AB6 319 320 321 333 33V 343 346 AR8 733 734 736 73G 738 744 752 753 763 77E 77W 788 BET CR7 D10 D38 DHT DH4 E70 E75 E90 F70 J41 M83 S20 SF3
 
User avatar
CarbonFibre
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:02 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 12:41 pm

It's stand occupancy that's the problem. They could built ten runways and aircraft would still have to wait for their gate.
 
LGWGate49
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:45 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 2:52 pm

Boris Johnson has weighed in:

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status ... 2564105216

"[This] judgment is not the end of the story. A third runway in west London would cause a huge increase in traffic and pollution and above all in noise. Heathrow have a long way to go before they can meet the environmental standards demanded by law."
Look for the ridiculous in everything, and you will find it
 
User avatar
bombayduck
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 2:31 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 3:15 pm

Trouble is cross rail is not going to be ready until at least the year 2020. There is a chance that could slip even further behind. And these people moan about the noise from aircraft will go to Heathrow, and use said aircraft to go on their holidays.
 
TC957
Posts: 3417
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 3:25 pm

Boris Johnson must think LHR is still full of old Tridents, VC-10 and 1-11's they way he goes on about noise. He should spend an afternoon at the Myrtle Avenue green and he'll soon hear the A30 road traffic makes far more noise than the flights do.
 
eurotrader85
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:45 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 5:30 pm

When did Boris Johnson ever say anything remotely intelligent? The buffoon is so out of touch with reality its scary. It is not a vote winner opposing the extra jobs and lower fares (and I say that as someone who lived under that flight path).

To be honest I think the positive should be taken out of the announcement. Also, assuming BA is still looking at long term growth, the WB order would also suggest they do still believe/(maybe know?) the airport expansion is coming, with the smaller 779s chosen instead of an A380 mix-i.e. more slots, more frequency over ramming more capacity out of the maxed out slots at hand.
 
bennett123
Posts: 8717
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 5:54 pm

But they are not starting construction until 2021, so I can’t see why Crossrail should be a problem.
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 5:59 pm

LGWGate49 wrote:
Boris Johnson has weighed in:

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status ... 2564105216

"[This] judgment is not the end of the story. A third runway in west London would cause a huge increase in traffic and pollution and above all in noise. Heathrow have a long way to go before they can meet the environmental standards demanded by law."


The third runway should not happen. This could be an inflection point toward less airplane traffic. Do we need flights from Heathrow to Wuhan? People need to travel less to keep the earth green.
 
EvanWSFO
Posts: 1038
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 6:11 pm

eurotrader85 wrote:
When did Boris Johnson ever say anything remotely intelligent? The buffoon is so out of touch with reality its scary. It is not a vote winner opposing the extra jobs and lower fares (and I say that as someone who lived under that flight path).

To be honest I think the positive should be taken out of the announcement. Also, assuming BA is still looking at long term growth, the WB order would also suggest they do still believe/(maybe know?) the airport expansion is coming, with the smaller 779s chosen instead of an A380 mix-i.e. more slots, more frequency over ramming more capacity out of the maxed out slots at hand.


I'm surprised he hasn't tried to revive the Thames estuary airport idea. IMO, LHR won't see a new runway in our (or least my) lifetimes.
I have been on this site 15 years. A unrecoverable email account led me to starting over. Those of you who call me a rookie, you may stop ok?
 
eurotrader85
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:45 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 6:20 pm

spinotter wrote:
LGWGate49 wrote:
Boris Johnson has weighed in:

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status ... 2564105216

"[This] judgment is not the end of the story. A third runway in west London would cause a huge increase in traffic and pollution and above all in noise. Heathrow have a long way to go before they can meet the environmental standards demanded by law."


The third runway should not happen. This could be an inflection point toward less airplane traffic. Do we need flights from Heathrow to Wuhan? People need to travel less to keep the earth green.


Or A and B and co need to manufacture planes which are more environmentally friendly. People ARE and WILL fly more going forwards. That's a fact. The answer to the environmental issue is not to ban expansion and take the ability to fly out of the reach of the poorest, but to make it sustainable.
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 4285
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 6:28 pm

It's only a single skirmish in a long battle.

The 3rd runway is an incredibly destructive project and will surely lose support as time goes on making it politically, economically and environmentally unviable.
mercure f-wtcc
 
bennett123
Posts: 8717
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 6:46 pm

If you look at BA, who are the biggest operator at LHR, things have already changed.

Since 2010, B737, B757 and B767 all gone. The B747 is also down by nearly 50%, the rest will be gone before Runway 3 opens.

The first of the B777 will also be gone by then.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8474
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 6:50 pm

So eliminating Boeing a/c from the BA fleet will assist?
 
bennett123
Posts: 8717
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 6:53 pm

These are the oldest types.

Nothing personal.
 
Elshad
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 am

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 7:02 pm

Excellent. This so called legal challenge was a time wasting stunt by NIMBYs and politicians seeking votes. Britain is an international laughing stock in terms of how long it takes to build things.
 
intrepidflyer
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 7:16 pm

I understand the need for a third runway, but I don't think for a minute that Heathrow won't be at capacity again very quickly, and the so called "we can smooth this out and have less stacks and less pollution" will last very long..
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8474
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 7:23 pm

bennett123 wrote:
These are the oldest types.

Nothing personal.

Ok, but then they introduced the A380 which is the largest pax a/c in the world, so the counter argument could be that if they had purchased more, there would be no need for the largest operator at the airport pushing for additional runways.
 
smartplane
Posts: 905
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 7:32 pm

spinotter wrote:
LGWGate49 wrote:
Boris Johnson has weighed in:

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status ... 2564105216

"[This] judgment is not the end of the story. A third runway in west London would cause a huge increase in traffic and pollution and above all in noise. Heathrow have a long way to go before they can meet the environmental standards demanded by law."

The third runway should not happen. This could be an inflection point toward less airplane traffic. Do we need flights from Heathrow to Wuhan? People need to travel less to keep the earth green.


Young people associated with the teenage environmental protest movement, have already presented at a number of CORSIA workshops. For the UK group, it appears the 3rd runway is a symbol of environmental failure. They want aircraft movements capped / reduced globally. The UK group want London & UK caps, so a win for LHR might be a red flag for other London airport owners.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8474
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 7:41 pm

smartplane wrote:
Young people associated with the teenage environmental protest movement, have already presented at a number of CORSIA workshops. For the UK group, it appears the 3rd runway is a symbol of environmental failure. They want aircraft movements capped / reduced globally. The UK group want London & UK caps, so a win for LHR might be a red flag for other London airport owners.

Not really, the group that ultimately recommended expansion at LHR struggled to find any good reason to expand at any other airport in the London catchment area.
Imagine if they had recommended expansion of LHR and another airport at the same time, the mind boggles at how the resources would be split.
 
smartplane
Posts: 905
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 7:53 pm

eurotrader85 wrote:
spinotter wrote:
People need to travel less to keep the earth green.


Or A and B and co need to manufacture planes which are more environmentally friendly. People ARE and WILL fly more going forwards. That's a fact. The answer to the environmental issue is not to ban expansion and take the ability to fly out of the reach of the poorest, but to make it sustainable.

And airlines need to behave in more environmentally sensitive ways, and Government rules and legislation need to assist.

If you speak to representatives from the 'poorest' nations, their priorities are food, health, and environmental impacts on those two. Cheap air travel for the rich ranks nowhere. And increasingly, it seems there are teenagers who feel the same way, even in 'rich' countries.
 
bennett123
Posts: 8717
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 8:01 pm

Often the representatives of these countries arrive by Executive Jets.
 
smartplane
Posts: 905
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 8:32 pm

bennett123 wrote:
Often the representatives of these countries arrive by Executive Jets.

Agreed.

But do you get a sense of impending change?

My children, grandchildren and beyond will pay for my reckless use of irreplaceable resources.

One suggested idea from these teenage mavericks is making environmental harm a crime. That would certainly gain the attention of CEO's and directors.
 
DobboDobbo
Posts: 834
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:02 am

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 8:44 pm

par13del wrote:
smartplane wrote:
Young people associated with the teenage environmental protest movement, have already presented at a number of CORSIA workshops. For the UK group, it appears the 3rd runway is a symbol of environmental failure. They want aircraft movements capped / reduced globally. The UK group want London & UK caps, so a win for LHR might be a red flag for other London airport owners.

Not really, the group that ultimately recommended expansion at LHR struggled to find any good reason to expand at any other airport in the London catchment area.
Imagine if they had recommended expansion of LHR and another airport at the same time, the mind boggles at how the resources would be split.


Actually, the case for expansion at LGW is stronger than at LHR.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.tele ... etter/amp/


However, the Secretary of State has decided LHR runway three is his preferred option. Today’s decision will be appealed (likely unsuccessfully) before the process moves on from the procedural and underlying principles of expansion to the detailed planning.

This is the area where the major issues with the preferred scheme (environmental, surface access, financing, deliverability) move from being hypothetical problems to being actual impediments.

All these things take time, and if the scheme finally obtains the requisite approvals, a 2021 start for construction feels highly optimistic.

Meanwhile, the political situation in the UK is (as I’m sure we all know) uncertain to say the least. There is a
Real risk that the project could loose government support before the summer is out.

It is highly unlikely that any future Corbyn led labour government (almost certain to contain John McDonnell) will support Heathrow expansion.

It is also by no means a given that whoever the new leader of the Conservatives will be will support expansion. If Boris Johnson is elected the new leader its almost certain the project will be cancelled.

Lots of tripwires and problems, it will be a minor miracle if this sees the light of day - but stranger things have happened.
 
bennett123
Posts: 8717
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 8:50 pm

These same people think that the UK can be Carbon Neutral in 6 years.
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4576
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 9:39 pm

Why is the Mayor of London so actively opposing something that would be so beneficial to his city? Does he believe that airport delays are like terrorism, just part and parcel of living in a big city?
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
 
redroo
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Wed May 01, 2019 10:37 pm

smartplane wrote:
spinotter wrote:
LGWGate49 wrote:
Boris Johnson has weighed in:

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status ... 2564105216

"[This] judgment is not the end of the story. A third runway in west London would cause a huge increase in traffic and pollution and above all in noise. Heathrow have a long way to go before they can meet the environmental standards demanded by law."

The third runway should not happen. This could be an inflection point toward less airplane traffic. Do we need flights from Heathrow to Wuhan? People need to travel less to keep the earth green.


Young people associated with the teenage environmental protest movement, have already presented at a number of CORSIA workshops. For the UK group, it appears the 3rd runway is a symbol of environmental failure. They want aircraft movements capped / reduced globally. The UK group want London & UK caps, so a win for LHR might be a red flag for other London airport owners.



When it comes to environmental issues I tend to look at what people do, not what people say.

If people were really cutting back on flying to save the planet then there wouldn’t be all those flight from Glasgow to Malaga. The growth of easyjet, Ryanair, wizz over the last decade would suggest that people prefer their weekends in Berlin and Tallin and their summers in Ibiza and Majorca than reducing their carbon emissions.
 
Blerg
Posts: 1800
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Thu May 02, 2019 7:03 am

The worst thing is that those same people who oppose aviation expansion are the first to chose flying when traveling abroad. Why not take a bicycle or a horse the next time you are going to Germany or Spain. Or why not spend your summer holidays in Dover so as to protect your planet and leave something to the next generation?
 
ELBOB
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:56 am

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Thu May 02, 2019 7:07 am

lightsaber wrote:
Heathrow has needed a 3rd runway since I first visited London in 1990.


When you visited in 1990, Heathrow already HAD three runways; 27L, 27R and 23. Three of the original six.

The correct wording to use is 'an additional parallel runway' for Heathrow. The seventh, if you feel chronological.


Pyrex wrote:
Why is the Mayor of London so actively opposing something that would be so beneficial to his city? Does he believe that airport delays are like terrorism, just part and parcel of living in a big city?


It's not hard to find the reasons:

The Mayor considers that, as a result of the additional flights and associated traffic, any expansion at Heathrow would significantly impair London’s ability to meet international air quality obligations in the shortest possible timescale and would contribute to an overall worsening of air quality relative to the situation without expansion. Heathrow already exposes more people to significant aircraft noise than its five main European rivals combined...

In other words, he has other considerations other than the financials of airlines.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12093
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Thu May 02, 2019 7:55 am

spinotter wrote:
The third runway should not happen. This could be an inflection point toward less airplane traffic.

This is the same illogical form of thinking that's stunted UK aviation for decades. It's not going to decrease aircraft traffic, it's just going to give that locale less of the benefit.

Some types never learn.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
chonetsao
Posts: 244
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:55 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Thu May 02, 2019 8:21 am

People live in Barnes and Richmond should be happy about the third runway. It means less noise when the third runway is in use.
 
uta999
Topic Author
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Thu May 02, 2019 9:02 am

These Eco 'terrorists' are going to stop every single bit of progress in the UK and beyond, because it does not fit with their misplaced ideology. We are not heading for a climate catastrophe. Not even close to one. The weather has always been quite hot, followed by quite cold, then very wet, followed by quite dry, then by some wind. The clue is when they say "its been the hottest May since 1946". It has all happened before. The Labour party will do and say anything to get a few more votes. It does not make it so.

And yet if you look around, these same people are still having children, eating meat, buying ever bigger cars, flying on more weekend city breaks, and extending their homes with more and more bathrooms, power sockets, and electronic devices. Some feel a bit guilty and buy a solar panel, and think they are powering the rest of the village.

Perhaps Heathrow should be planning for no third runway, but extending the site footprint north between the A4/M4. Then building a 6th Terminal and 100 new stands. Just in case the Eco nuts need to fly to some conference on Climate Change / Extinction / Catastrophe. I am all for a reduction in population, let's start with them.
Your computer just got better
 
Andy33
Posts: 2373
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Thu May 02, 2019 9:17 am

par13del wrote:
So eliminating Boeing a/c from the BA fleet will assist?


Do keep up. During the same period BA have taken delivery of 12 77Ws, 12 788s and 18 789s. They have a further 4 77Ws, 12 787-10s, and now 18 779s on order. Hardly eliminating Boeing, is it?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8474
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Thu May 02, 2019 10:33 am

Andy33 wrote:
par13del wrote:
So eliminating Boeing a/c from the BA fleet will assist?


Do keep up. During the same period BA have taken delivery of 12 77Ws, 12 788s and 18 789s. They have a further 4 77Ws, 12 787-10s, and now 18 779s on order. Hardly eliminating Boeing, is it?

Bennett123 post was about what BA had already changed by eliminating older Boeing types from his fleet, the introduction of the much larger A380 which in some quarters is also a major polluter was missed.
 
art
Posts: 2838
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Thu May 02, 2019 11:04 am

par13del wrote:
Well don't count the ducks yet, the ruling did say those in opposition will have other opportunities to make their case about noise, quality of life, etc etc etc.
So it has only just begun, expect additional legal challenges, this is going to be long.


Increased movements would result in greater noise inconvenience for those living near the airport. However by the time a 3rd runway were built the engines on aircraft using LHR would be quiter than now, mitigating that increase in movements. As for air pollution, the air in the locality of CDG, Schipol, Frankfurt etc would become more polluted if LHR were denied a 3rd runway. I don't see how moving emissions from the London area would have any effect on world emissions. The UK economy would be the loser if there were no LHR expansion as well as those living near LHR since an extra runway would create permanent jobs for those nearby (in addition to a large number of temporary jobs involved in construction).
 
jomur
Posts: 183
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:36 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Thu May 02, 2019 6:24 pm

par13del wrote:
Well don't count the ducks yet, the ruling did say those in opposition will have other opportunities to make their case about noise, quality of life, etc etc etc.
So it has only just begun, expect additional legal challenges, this is going to be long.


I think you will find that the Judge was referring to the actual planning application for those to make their case not this court case.
This judgement was about the legal process of the DoT being able to say it was for a 3rd runway.
 
Cunard
Posts: 2329
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Thu May 02, 2019 9:12 pm

chonetsao wrote:
People live in Barnes and Richmond should be happy about the third runway. It means less noise when the third runway is in use.


Are you trying to suggest that the two current runways will see less movements ''if and when'' the third runway is built at LHR!

The two existing runways will remain at full capacity and it may well be the case that R3 will have limitations to it's annual movements as part of the planning process.

I don't honestly think that the residents of Barnes and Richmond will necessarily have ''less noise'' if R3 is finally built as the current movements will probably remain as they are.

Although by the time the proposed runway is supposed to built aircraft will be even quieter than they currently are so on that basis the residents of Barnes and Richmond will probably encounter less noise but not purely down to any third runway!
94 Countries, 327 Destinations Worldwide, 32 Airlines, 29 Aircraft Types, 182 Airports, 335 Flights.
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4407
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Thu May 02, 2019 9:51 pm

spinotter wrote:
LGWGate49 wrote:
Boris Johnson has weighed in:

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status ... 2564105216

"[This] judgment is not the end of the story. A third runway in west London would cause a huge increase in traffic and pollution and above all in noise. Heathrow have a long way to go before they can meet the environmental standards demanded by law."


The third runway should not happen. This could be an inflection point toward less airplane traffic. Do we need flights from Heathrow to Wuhan? People need to travel less to keep the earth green.


Who let you in?
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Fri May 03, 2019 2:53 pm

skipness1E wrote:
spinotter wrote:
LGWGate49 wrote:
Boris Johnson has weighed in:

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status ... 2564105216

"[This] judgment is not the end of the story. A third runway in west London would cause a huge increase in traffic and pollution and above all in noise. Heathrow have a long way to go before they can meet the environmental standards demanded by law."


The third runway should not happen. This could be an inflection point toward less airplane traffic. Do we need flights from Heathrow to Wuhan? People need to travel less to keep the earth green.


Who let you in?


Are you really unwilling to discuss or think about the ecological consequences of the activities of human race? Or to conceive that we need to change our ways?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17355
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Fri May 03, 2019 3:17 pm

spinotter wrote:
skipness1E wrote:
spinotter wrote:

The third runway should not happen. This could be an inflection point toward less airplane traffic. Do we need flights from Heathrow to Wuhan? People need to travel less to keep the earth green.


Who let you in?


Are you really unwilling to discuss or think about the ecological consequences of the activities of human race? Or to conceive that we need to change our ways?

Except aviation is 2% of fuel and more for GNP. Heathrow has needed to expand for 20+ years.

I've modeled global warming. The #1 solution is replace coal with nuclear energy. Until I see that happening, it is hard to take such discussion seriously. And I've integrated the 25,000 year damage to the environment, coal is far worse.

There needs to be a 3rd and 4th runway at LHR. Oh well, the new IST, Daxing, ADD, and all the growth in India will propel aviation.

If we don't talk about the US's and Europe's lack of infrastructure here, where are we. Growth happens. Plan for it. If London wants to lose it's position of the #1 aviation market, who cares? ORD didn't expand and lost it's influence on the US and global economy. Business moves readily today.

Lightsaber
You know nothing John Snow.
 
TSS
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Fri May 03, 2019 5:22 pm

spinotter wrote:
The third runway should not happen. This could be an inflection point toward less airplane traffic. Do we need flights from Heathrow to Wuhan? People need to travel less to keep the earth green.


skipness1E wrote:
Who let you in?


spinotter wrote:
Are you really unwilling to discuss or think about the ecological consequences of the activities of human race? Or to conceive that we need to change our ways?

lightsaber wrote:
Except aviation is 2% of fuel and more for GNP. Heathrow has needed to expand for 20+ years.

I've modeled global warming. The #1 solution is replace coal with nuclear energy. Until I see that happening, it is hard to take such discussion seriously. And I've integrated the 25,000 year damage to the environment, coal is far worse.

There needs to be a 3rd and 4th runway at LHR. Oh well, the new IST, Daxing, ADD, and all the growth in India will propel aviation.

If we don't talk about the US's and Europe's lack of infrastructure here, where are we. Growth happens. Plan for it. If London wants to lose it's position of the #1 aviation market, who cares? ORD didn't expand and lost it's influence on the US and global economy. Business moves readily today.

Very well put. The genii called Heathrow International Airport is out of the bottle and must now be accommodated. Trying to get him to go back into the bottle is impossible and telling him to go away is a needless waste of a perfectly good genii.

I would think that with the looming prospect of Brexit on the horizon, our British friends would be trying to think of ways to maintain or even increase their role in international trade and travel, not ways to deliberately stifle it.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
PaxPicti
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:37 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Fri May 03, 2019 5:23 pm

For once in his life, Boris is right. Anyone who thinks a third runway at LHR is a good idea has probably never lived or worked, or even tried to travel on the motorway, near Heathrow - other than maybe in the middle of the night. It's total lunacy and being an aviation enthusiast or occasional user of the place doesn't change that. The airspace and infrastructure around it simply cannot cope with more traffic. And there *will* be more traffic if a third runway is built.

If south-east England needs more runway capacity, then extra ones at Garwick and Stansted make far more sense and would cost less. In fact, I think both of those could be built for the cost of the one at LHR, and with less resulting problems. The push for it to be LHR has nothing to do with more total runway capacity in the south-east and everything to do with the vested interests there trying to get a bigger piece of the same pie, when what we need is a bigger pie.
 
SelseyBill
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: Heathrow - Legal challenge lost

Fri May 03, 2019 6:25 pm

spinotter wrote:
A third runway in west London would cause a huge increase in traffic and pollution and above all in noise. Heathrow have a long way to go before they can meet the environmental standards demanded by law. "The third runway should not happen. This could be an inflection point toward less airplane traffic. Do we need flights from Heathrow to Wuhan?


I'm fine with you campaigning for less aviation and airport contraction if you want, but why don't you start your campaigning in Beijing or New Delhi, where they will be opening dozens of completely new airports over the coming decades; not one runway, but completely new airport builds.

The UK needs a vibrant LHR as its prime gateway to the world.

I find it quite funny to listen to some of these hypocritical west London MP's bemoan house values because of potential economic contraction, but then argue in their next breath against LHR expansion

spinotter wrote:
People need to travel less to keep the earth green.

No; we need to burn less carbon as we travel, not stop travelling. Two different things completely.

Nobody hates aviation or aircraft per se; what they dislike are the emissions from the fuel being used in their propulsion. If all aircraft were electric, nobody would bat an eyelid. Much of the LHR argument seems to surround pollution from ground transportation; something that we have now solved going forward. We can make buses/trains/cars/trams/cabs run on electricity, so decision makers just need to start making decisions that turns all ground transportation green, not banning travel altogether.

Maybe as a token symbolic gesture, LHR should look at proposing a commercial air route, and specify all-electric aircraft, even if they are only 9 seaters. That would shut some people up

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos