Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
JannEejit
Posts: 1648
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:04 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 2:44 pm

MrBren wrote:
So when will LHR be overtook by CDG?


Is the Parisian airport exempt from the Paris Agreement ? That would certainly be ironic ...
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 2:53 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
Scotron12 wrote:
JannEejit wrote:
So what does 'LON' do now ? Further expansion of another airport, does Heathrow Holdings Ltd go shopping for another option elsewhere ?


They say they will appeal to the Supreme Court. But TBH...this is the first of many fights that will drag the process out for years. Christ, it was initially proposed by government in 2003!

Maybe LGW 2nd runway can get done instead?


Unless Heathrow wins in the Supreme Court any runway building is impossible. The exact same arguments could be used against new runways at LGW or STN, or anywhere else in the UK. Unless overturned on appeal, the outcome of this decision is that any infrastructure development in the UK must be carbon neutral.

Ah no...if I understand correctly, the reason for the overturn is that the government did not factor the environment commitment into their planning and approval of the third runway.
Unless you are saying it is an impossible standard to meet, (in which case they could probably get the courts to strike those standards down) by following the procedures at LGW they could succeed.
The issue there of course is that no one want to see LGW expand while LHR remains stagnant.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 2:57 pm

JustSomeDood wrote:
People who actually care about the environment would see that a third runway at Heathrow is a good way to address the severe holding/congestion problems (I.E lots of planes burning fuel waiting to land) currently plaguing LHR. Unless they can propose other solutions to address this (they won't), environmental concerns are a false flag.

Obvious solution, reduce the number of slots available, reduce the number of a/c trying to get to LHR, reduce the number of a/c circling overhead.
Perfect storm for restarting the A380 production, only A380's allowed at LHR.

Of course they could put the holding area's further out to sea, but that might affect the fish.
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 1810
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 2:59 pm

This just shows that Britain isn't really capable of getting things done. How many years have they been talking about this only to flip and flop about the issue with endless reviews, committees and so on. The whole country is being held back by a small group of selfish people that decided to go and live next to an airport, then spent the rest of their lives complaining about it.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:11 pm

peterinlisbon wrote:
This just shows that Britain isn't really capable of getting things done. How many years have they been talking about this only to flip and flop about the issue with endless reviews, committees and so on. The whole country is being held back by a small group of selfish people that decided to go and live next to an airport, then spent the rest of their lives complaining about it.



This is not true. Even though the issue was brought forward by environmental campaigners the fault lies entirely with the government.

The government's decision to allow the expansion was unlawful because it did not take climate commitments into account, the Court of Appeal said.


https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51658693

It is unlawful because, by law, the government has to take climate impacts into account for every decision made.

They did not for the runway expansion.

Nothing to do with selfish people or NIMBYs. The government violated its own laws.
 
KFTG
Posts: 858
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:08 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:21 pm

If then need was so dire for a 3rd runway, why did they close the 3rd runway they already had?
 
User avatar
PPVLC
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 12:07 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:23 pm

PepeTheFrog wrote:
Just ignore the green parties and continue building that 3rd runway.

The economy needs to grow folks.


I'm not trying to patronize you but I think you forgot we still live in a democracy.
Cabin crew L188 707 727 737 767 A300 DC10 MD11 777 747
 
uta999
Topic Author
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:31 pm

KFTG wrote:
If then need was so dire for a 3rd runway, why did they close the 3rd runway they already had?


Runway 23/05 was a crosswind only runway which was used around 1% of the time as it interfered with operations on both the 27s.
Your computer just got better
 
uta999
Topic Author
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:33 pm

uta999 wrote:
KFTG wrote:
If then need was so dire for a 3rd runway, why did they close the 3rd runway they already had?


Runway 23/05 was a crosswind only runway which was used around 1% of the time as it interfered with operations on both the 28s.
Your computer just got better
 
SeoulIncheon
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:52 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:33 pm

intrance wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:
People who actually care about the environment would see that a third runway at Heathrow is a good way to address the severe holding/congestion problems (I.E lots of planes burning fuel waiting to land) currently plaguing LHR. Unless they can propose other solutions to address this (they won't), environmental concerns are a false flag.


How about less flights, more investment in R&D... less frequency and larger planes. Let business adapt to the situation, not the situation adapt to business. The businesses who stand to profit from more capacity should be the ones responsible for making sure the extra capacity comes in a sensible way, at least somewhat environmentally friendly way instead of plonking down another piece of asphalt and changing nothing else.

Sure, economic progress is good, but like anything else, not at any cost.


So let businesses in UK adapt to the situation - relocate to France, Germany or Ireland (laying off most Britons they currently employee), downsize (laying off part of British employees), slash down salaries (more paupers in UK - and those who lose salaries are those deemed easily "replacable" - low-skilled employees close to minimum wage) or close down altogether (laying off all employees). More investments in R&D - or just about all other alternatives can be done elsewhere, and probably more efficiently when airports and transportations are not an constraint (such as Paris, maybe?) It's how market works - and there is no way around it.
 
JibberJim
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:33 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:36 pm

uta999 wrote:
How do I get from Gatwick to Stansted Airport?


You shouldn't, such a journey should be discouraged, it's inefficient for London and the UK - they take all the externalities of your journey and get almost none of the benefits (in terms of London it's likely none at all, there are so few destinations where the subsidies of connecting passengers pay those externalities.)

So it's a straw man, until you can justify the benefit London and the UK gain from facilitating that journey (or increase in individual airport capacity and its associated externalities) then it's not worth considering the difficulty in it.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:37 pm

par13del wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:
People who actually care about the environment would see that a third runway at Heathrow is a good way to address the severe holding/congestion problems (I.E lots of planes burning fuel waiting to land) currently plaguing LHR. Unless they can propose other solutions to address this (they won't), environmental concerns are a false flag.

Obvious solution, reduce the number of slots available, reduce the number of a/c trying to get to LHR, reduce the number of a/c circling overhead.
Perfect storm for restarting the A380 production, only A380's allowed at LHR.

Of course they could put the holding area's further out to sea, but that might affect the fish.


Reducing slots at LHR at this point just means more flights to LGW, STN, LTN, all three of which have problems with slots already and merely means the congestion/holding issue in the London area goes to other airports. With long-term economic growth of developing economies, travel demand to/from London/UK will spur more flights to London, not less.

Forcing upguages also indirectly hurts customers as only bigger airlines can effectively absorb the risk and costs of operating such planes in Europe's seasonal aviation market. An LHR with only large widebodies allowed is an LHR that is under the stranglehold of full-service airlines, who will then be more free to price-gouge on tickets in a de-facto protected market.
 
User avatar
LaunchDetected
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:42 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:37 pm

PPVLC wrote:
I'm not trying to patronize you but I think you forgot we still live in a democracy.


Ochlocracy is a more appropriate term. As said below, if you want to destroy your own country, you would not do it differently.

N14AZ wrote:
For me such legal decision have the taste of the end of the Roman empire. I would love to read a history book about Europe in several hundreds of years. I guess they will write something like “actually, West Europe was doing fine. But at some point these countries become so lethargic due to their own legislations and the new super power to the East simply took over their role”.
Caravelle lover
 
DobboDobbo
Posts: 1127
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:02 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:37 pm

Today’s ruling was surprising in the sense that this was seen to be the easiest of the impediments to the scheme to get over.

Had it passed this point, there would have been a planning inquiry, also subject to judicial challenge, and that was seen as the most vulnerable legal stage of the process. We are not there yet and likely won’t be in this process.

There is then deliverability. Who pays for the surrounding infrastructure. As things stand, no one is willing to do that - so the scheme won’t get built. There are questions about HHL’s ability to finance the airfield part of the work, but we are miles away from that.

In the round, for the scheme to be torpedoed on principle and for the government to accept the verdict means that it is effectively dead.
 
SeoulIncheon
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:52 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:39 pm

JannEejit wrote:
MrBren wrote:
So when will LHR be overtook by CDG?


Is the Parisian airport exempt from the Paris Agreement ? That would certainly be ironic ...


Paris Agreement does not put a country under any obligation to restrict growth in any industrial sector, including airports - merely obliges nations to provide information and climate change reaction plans (in some form). Think of this as more of an MOU, not a binding contract.
btw CDG already has far more runways than LHR.
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 7427
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:46 pm

Heathrow should bite the bullet and go 24/7, buy up all the houses under the flight path at market value and then rent then out to people on the understanding you know what you are getting, cheaper than a third runway maybe? Think this will also put Gatwick in a stronger position for a second runway. Just my :twocents:
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
Growing older, but not up.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:49 pm

JustSomeDood wrote:
Reducing slots at LHR at this point just means more flights to LGW, STN, LTN,

Hence the reason why when the last recommendation was made which only stated LHR, most folks said it was biased.
However, if the mantra was to stay sole focused on LHR to the exclusion of all other possibilities they accomplished that in spades, so now they have what they have.

If the traffic growth is really there, the better bang for the buck would be to work on multiple airports at the same time....
Imagine if HS2 was about better connectivity of the other airports to central London and each other, the mind boggles.

However, as most of us pessimist expected, LHR 3rd runway is still viable on paper, when it will be built is another story.
 
Bongodog49
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:35 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:53 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
peterinlisbon wrote:
This just shows that Britain isn't really capable of getting things done. How many years have they been talking about this only to flip and flop about the issue with endless reviews, committees and so on. The whole country is being held back by a small group of selfish people that decided to go and live next to an airport, then spent the rest of their lives complaining about it.



This is not true. Even though the issue was brought forward by environmental campaigners the fault lies entirely with the government.

The government's decision to allow the expansion was unlawful because it did not take climate commitments into account, the Court of Appeal said.


https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51658693

It is unlawful because, by law, the government has to take climate impacts into account for every decision made.

They did not for the runway expansion.

Nothing to do with selfish people or NIMBYs. The government violated its own laws.


The Government hasn't as such violated any of its own laws, the Judges have made a link between two pieces of legislation i.e. the Paris accord where nations agreed to cut emissions and the bill to build the 3rd runway and said that the Govt needs to clearly state how it will build a 3rd runway whilst meeting the paris emissions promise. There is to the best of my knowledge nothing in UK planning law that presently states that applications have to be in accordance with the agreement to cut emissions. If there were literally all development in the UK would grind to a halt.

What this judgement will do is just delay the runway for yet more years if the Govt choose to challenge the judgement, or result in the plan being abandoned. Ironically its only 2 weeks since the Govt decided to continue with the plans for High speed rail across the UK, which of course will be powered by electricity and meeting environmental targets, as soon as they made the announcement environmental groups declared it to be a "disaster" what do they want ? rail, air or perhaps a return to a horse and cart
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:53 pm

DobboDobbo wrote:
Today’s ruling was surprising in the sense that this was seen to be the easiest of the impediments to the scheme to get over.

I suspect not, if it was that easy the last independent study which selected LHR over all others would have included it.
My assumption is that it was ignored because of the massive size of the LHR project and getting all the necessary experts and mathematicians together to crunch the numbers into something that the layman could understand.

Let's see what happens now, if the government does not appeal, it becomes a private sector item only and the potential is there for the government to become another stumbling block.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 4:01 pm

Bongodog49 wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
peterinlisbon wrote:
This just shows that Britain isn't really capable of getting things done. How many years have they been talking about this only to flip and flop about the issue with endless reviews, committees and so on. The whole country is being held back by a small group of selfish people that decided to go and live next to an airport, then spent the rest of their lives complaining about it.



This is not true. Even though the issue was brought forward by environmental campaigners the fault lies entirely with the government.

The government's decision to allow the expansion was unlawful because it did not take climate commitments into account, the Court of Appeal said.


https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51658693

It is unlawful because, by law, the government has to take climate impacts into account for every decision made.

They did not for the runway expansion.

Nothing to do with selfish people or NIMBYs. The government violated its own laws.


The Government hasn't as such violated any of its own laws, the Judges have made a link between two pieces of legislation i.e. the Paris accord where nations agreed to cut emissions and the bill to build the 3rd runway and said that the Govt needs to clearly state how it will build a 3rd runway whilst meeting the paris emissions promise. There is to the best of my knowledge nothing in UK planning law that presently states that applications have to be in accordance with the agreement to cut emissions. If there were literally all development in the UK would grind to a halt.

What this judgement will do is just delay the runway for yet more years if the Govt choose to challenge the judgement, or result in the plan being abandoned. Ironically its only 2 weeks since the Govt decided to continue with the plans for High speed rail across the UK, which of course will be powered by electricity and meeting environmental targets, as soon as they made the announcement environmental groups declared it to be a "disaster" what do they want ? rail, air or perhaps a return to a horse and cart


You are right they did not violate any law, but the case is still legit as the judges decided that one decision (building the third runway) can not be made without also living up to the second decision (signing the Paris accord).

But I already wrote back an post #2

I actually expected this outcome as the government handed the reason to the campaigners themselves back then and a ruling against the campaigners would also have been a ruling against the government and this would have had a big impact on further proceedings and would have mostly triggered a political debate and the outcome there would have given new ground for another appeal.


This thing is entirely on the government.
 
BHXLOVER
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 2:20 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 4:43 pm

The fact is that most people in the UK don't live in the London area.

Millions of journeys are be made just to get to LHR to catch a plane. How about utilising the spare capacity at the UK's regional airports ? We know that airlines want to fly to LHR, but maybe the planes should fly nearer to the people rather than the people having to travel to get to the plane?

There must be an alternative to having just one super hub for everyone in the UK. Anyone want to think outside the box?
 
uta999
Topic Author
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 4:55 pm

BHXLOVER wrote:
The fact is that most people in the UK don't live in the London area.

Millions of journeys are be made just to get to LHR to catch a plane. How about utilising the spare capacity at the UK's regional airports ? We know that airlines want to fly to LHR, but maybe the planes should fly nearer to the people rather than the people having to travel to get to the plane?

There must be an alternative to having just one super hub for everyone in the UK. Anyone want to think outside the box?


So how do you propose to replicate the 200 destinations available at LHR to Birmingham, Exeter, Leeds Bradford or East Midlands? That is a non-starter. Around 70% of the UK population live within 3 hours of LHR. There is little point in moving some flights elsewhere, because if you do the planes won't be full. EK will tell you that.
Your computer just got better
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1654
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 5:01 pm

PLEASE READ THE STORY

This isn't about the impact on local residents, or whether we should expand at Stansted instead, it's about whether the 3rd runway is compatible with the UK's Climate Change promises. As the BBC's reporter said

This judgement will fly round the globe quicker than a 747.
More and more politicians worldwide are pledging to make their economies climate neutral, but the Appeal Court judges have shown exactly what this intention implies.
From now on, every infrastructure spending decision in the UK could face legal challenge if it doesn't comply with the Climate Change Act, which mandates virtually zero emissions by 2050.
It's not clear that's what MPs intended when they signed up to the 2050 target, but in today's court ruling, it's what they've got.
The prime minister's decision not to appeal against the ruling may also call into question aviation expansion in other airports, as there is currently no viable technical fix to make planes zero-carbon, and carbon offsetting schemes proposed by the aviation industry are contentious.
Environmentalists see today as the day the reality of climate change finally dawned.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
yycdel
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2014 11:14 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 5:22 pm

peterinlisbon wrote:
This just shows that Britain isn't really capable of getting things done. How many years have they been talking about this only to flip and flop about the issue with endless reviews, committees and so on. The whole country is being held back by a small group of selfish people.


Canada says hi, welcome to the group
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8357
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 5:31 pm

Rezone LHR as a residential area and build a greenfield airport away from population centers.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 5:37 pm

uta999 wrote:
BHXLOVER wrote:
The fact is that most people in the UK don't live in the London area.

Millions of journeys are be made just to get to LHR to catch a plane. How about utilising the spare capacity at the UK's regional airports ? We know that airlines want to fly to LHR, but maybe the planes should fly nearer to the people rather than the people having to travel to get to the plane?

There must be an alternative to having just one super hub for everyone in the UK. Anyone want to think outside the box?


So how do you propose to replicate the 200 destinations available at LHR to Birmingham,.

Do you honestly believe that when LHR opened they had 200 destinations, besides, if we replicate the destinations at Birmingham we may as well close LHR, which no one is suggesting.
EK push into secondary UK markets was to serve its own local hub, if UK airlines start using secondary airports there primary objective will be different, but still focused around connecting pax. I am willing to bet that with all the data mining that is presently done, they have a good idea the geographic location of a good number of their pax who use LHR.
I don't think everyone going to NYC for example are all located in the London area.
 
TC957
Posts: 3814
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 5:39 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Rezone LHR as a residential area and build a greenfield airport away from population centers.

Then the tree-huggers will campaign to save the butterflies and insects that will get displaced....
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1548
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:03 pm

Blerg wrote:
Heathrow should ban all those who advocate against the third runway from flying from there. Then again, none of these greens should be flying from anywhere, they should use eco-friendly transport means like bicycles or paddle boats.


More than that, if anyone - including those here on this forum - truly believe that mankind is causing dangerous warming, you have NO BUSINESS flying for any reason whatsoever. In other words, the ones screaming about a climate emergency need to put their money where their mouths are.

As far as the LHR runway, is anyone really surprised by this enviro nuttery?
 
goosebayguy
Posts: 706
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:12 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:10 pm

I can now see mix mode runway use here. Its the obvious next route for LHR.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1548
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:26 pm

Opus99 wrote:
I have a question...So with airlines like BA with Heathrow as their home and with this constraint of two runways how do they grow capacity? Do they purchase larger planes or?


You don’t grow. And since the UK government has bought into the global warming disaster scenario, and the court ruled based on UK government policy that CO2 must be net zero, that’s it. LHR won’t grow because it shouldn’t be allowed to grow. At LHR, what you have now is all you’ll ever have.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10616
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:38 pm

Doesn't this ruling imply that any increase in economic activity will violate the law? Any new business any new thing or change? In fact wouldn't any birth technically violate the law?

It seems ludicrous.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
smartplane
Posts: 1508
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:45 pm

intrance wrote:
How about less flights, more investment in R&D... less frequency and larger planes. Let business adapt to the situation, not the situation adapt to business. The businesses who stand to profit from more capacity should be the ones responsible for making sure the extra capacity comes in a sensible way, at least somewhat environmentally friendly way instead of plonking down another piece of asphalt and changing nothing else.

Sure, economic progress is good, but like anything else, not at any cost.

Very well crafted position.

Unsolicited submissions in support of CORSIA going further and moving faster, are not just coming from 'greenies' and politicians, but captains of industry and those who have a stake in quite the opposite, with the focus increasingly on quality not quantity.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24367
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:46 pm

AirbusA6 wrote:
PLEASE READ THE STORY

This isn't about the impact on local residents, or whether we should expand at Stansted instead, it's about whether the 3rd runway is compatible with the UK's Climate Change promises.

The article is loaded with doublespeak:

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps tweeted that the government would not appeal against the ruling.

In an interview, he said that it was "for Heathrow and the courts to decide" whether the expansion should go ahead.

"This government is absolutely committed [from] the Prime Minister down to airport expansion, but, we want to make sure that expansion is environmentally friendly," he said.

We want our cake, and eat it too.

Heathrow chief executive John Holland-Kaye said the airport would challenge the court's decision at the Supreme Court, saying: "We think the appeals court got it wrong".

"We have a very strong legal case, and we will be making that very firmly," he said.

He said in the meantime Heathrow would work with government on a review of its policy "to make sure we can demonstrate expansion is compatible with the Paris accord on climate change".

The courts are wrong, but our next move is to figure out what we need to fix.

It's not clear that's what MPs intended when they signed up to the 2050 target, but in today's court ruling, it's what they've got.

The prime minister's decision not to appeal against the ruling may also call into question aviation expansion in other airports, as there is currently no viable technical fix to make planes zero-carbon, and carbon offsetting schemes proposed by the aviation industry are contentious.

In other words, business as usual.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24367
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:47 pm

uta999 wrote:
So how do you propose to replicate the 200 destinations available at LHR to Birmingham, Exeter, Leeds Bradford or East Midlands?

It's already being done at AMS...
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
PepeTheFrog
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:48 pm

blueflyer wrote:
PepeTheFrog wrote:
Just ignore the green parties and continue building that 3rd runway.

The economy needs to grow folks.

Just ignore these pesky businessmen who think the world resolves around hourly LON-NYC flights. Put a few A380s on the route already and free up slots for other destinations. Rinse and repeat through the network.


A380 production is coming to an end and several airlines are in the process of phasing out the A380.

So no, LHR needs that 3rd runway.
Good moaning!
 
IWMBH
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:01 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:49 pm

I’m not against efforts against global warming. But, in my opinion stopping the growth of airports is not the way. The growth of the airline industry won’t stop and you’ll just push the problem to another place. An effort to force airlines to invest in bio-fuel and make that more affordable will be much better for the environment in the long-run.

blueflyer wrote:
Just ignore these pesky businessmen who think the world resolves around hourly LON-NYC flights. Put a few A380s on the route already and free up slots for other destinations. Rinse and repeat through the network.


The solution are A380’s? :lol:
Last edited by IWMBH on Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
777GE90
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:26 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:53 pm

Blerg wrote:
Heathrow should ban all those who advocate against the third runway from flying from there. Then again, none of these greens should be flying from anywhere, they should use eco-friendly transport means like bicycles or paddle boats.


Amen, let them get a Ryanair flight from Stansted with 10 x connections.
Image
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24367
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:04 pm

IWMBH wrote:
I’m not against efforts against global warming. But, in my opinion stopping the growth of airports is not the way. The growth of the airline industry won’t stop and you’ll just push the problem to another place. An effort to force airlines to invest in bio-fuel and make that more affordable will be much better for the environment in the long-run.

Right, but the real issue is the law says they need to be carbon neutral by 2050 and switching to bio-fuel isn't going to achieve that.

IWMBH wrote:
blueflyer wrote:
Just ignore these pesky businessmen who think the world resolves around hourly LON-NYC flights. Put a few A380s on the route already and free up slots for other destinations. Rinse and repeat through the network.

The solution are A380’s? :lol:

No, the solution is not flying large numbers of empty seats around.

I'm pretty sure reasonable people could find a happy medium, but everyone involved seems to want total victory as opposed to compromise.

Besides, as said earlier, the 3rd runway project is a non-starter for so many reasons this first set back should be its death knell.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1901
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:06 pm

Tugger wrote:
Doesn't this ruling imply that any increase in economic activity will violate the law? Any new business any new thing or change? In fact wouldn't any birth technically violate the law?

It seems ludicrous.

Tugg

Technically, you would need to submit proof that every activity works towards the goal of zero emissions by 2050. However, the laws here only concern the government and its actions. So private activities are perfectly fine as long as they comply with the applicable laws, which of course are created by the goverment with the intention to achieve that goal. Government spending on the other hand will need proof that it pushes the UK towards the zero-emission goal or that the added CO2 emissions are offset by other measures.

For LHR these could be:
- reduce emissions in other industries on top of planned reductions, e. g. by increasing the percentage of renewable electricity
- reduce the emissions in aviation overall, e. g. by increasing aviation fuel taxes, forcing airlines to use more efficient aircraft or funding research into environmentally friendly aircraft
- limit the emissions in aviation at LHR specifically, e. g. by setting a cap on slots or ensuring that the new runway reduces delays and thereby improves efficiency
- reduce emissions in other areas at LHR, e. g. by installing more efficient air conditioning systems or adding solar panels on airport property
- offset emissions, e. g. by reforestation or industrial carbon capture methods

The government only needs to show a CO2 balance that is net negative.
 
uta999
Topic Author
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:09 pm

mxaxai wrote:
uta999 wrote:
However, often overlooked is the fact that high speed rail costs around £100B per 100 miles of track, takes 20 years to build, and demolishes more houses, communities, fields, woodland and decimates more AONB than a few extra flights at LHR. The electricity used is a very minor matter when it comes to HSR.

Rubbish. Typical cost is < 10 billion € per 100 miles of 2-way track, even accounting for significant tunnel and bridge construction. TBH, rail projects are often subject to the same NIMBY'ism as any other construction project so it's cheaper and faster to put it in a tunnel than to fight with all the residents and buy the fields and woodland.


UK HS2 is costing £106B for a little over 100 miles FYI.
Your computer just got better
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1901
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:17 pm

Revelation wrote:
IWMBH wrote:
I’m not against efforts against global warming. But, in my opinion stopping the growth of airports is not the way. The growth of the airline industry won’t stop and you’ll just push the problem to another place. An effort to force airlines to invest in bio-fuel and make that more affordable will be much better for the environment in the long-run.

Right, but the real issue is the law says they need to be carbon neutral by 2050 and switching to bio-fuel isn't going to achieve that.

It can reduce emissions by 90% or more, depending on the exact fuel and how it is produced. That's pretty close to the 100% reduction goal and I'm sure the court would have been okay with such a proposal (if only as an interim solution until better ones are developed).
 
NYCAAer
Posts: 786
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:22 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:24 pm

MrBren wrote:
So when will LHR be overtook by CDG?


That was my first thought, as enplanements at CDG are growing at a faster rate than LHR, and CDG already has 4 runways. During certain times of day, notably late afternoon/early evening, CDG is quieter, so there’s room for it to grow.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10616
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:25 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Doesn't this ruling imply that any increase in economic activity will violate the law? Any new business any new thing or change? In fact wouldn't any birth technically violate the law?

It seems ludicrous.

Tugg

Technically, you would need to submit proof that every activity works towards the goal of zero emissions by 2050. However, the laws here only concern the government and its actions. So private activities are perfectly fine as long as they comply with the applicable laws, which of course are created by the goverment with the intention to achieve that goal. Government spending on the other hand will need proof that it pushes the UK towards the zero-emission goal or that the added CO2 emissions are offset by other measures.

For LHR these could be:
- reduce emissions in other industries on top of planned reductions, e. g. by increasing the percentage of renewable electricity
- reduce the emissions in aviation overall, e. g. by increasing aviation fuel taxes, forcing airlines to use more efficient aircraft or funding research into environmentally friendly aircraft
- limit the emissions in aviation at LHR specifically, e. g. by setting a cap on slots or ensuring that the new runway reduces delays and thereby improves efficiency
- reduce emissions in other areas at LHR, e. g. by installing more efficient air conditioning systems or adding solar panels on airport property
- offset emissions, e. g. by reforestation or industrial carbon capture methods

The government only needs to show a CO2 balance that is net negative.

But isn't is the private company Heathrow Airport Holdings that is seeking to expand Heathrow and not the UK government?

If tied to their approval of the plan, then that gets into every private business that applies for a business license as the government is "approving" those too. Isn't it also the government that issue birth certificates (to go back to my overly extreme example)?

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2600
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:28 pm

Under the reasoing used in this decision, the UK can't build a runway anywhere. It should be appealed.
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 793
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:29 pm

Blerg wrote:
Heathrow should ban all those who advocate against the third runway from flying from there. Then again, none of these greens should be flying from anywhere, they should use eco-friendly transport means like bicycles or paddle boats.


Bicycle, feet, and fewer trips even by public transportation, with minimal long distance. A happier and healthier human race and biosphere.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10616
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:30 pm

NYCAAer wrote:
MrBren wrote:
So when will LHR be overtook by CDG?


That was my first thought, as enplanements at CDG are growing at a faster rate than LHR, and CDG already has 4 runways. During certain times of day, notably late afternoon/early evening, CDG is quieter, so there’s room for it to grow.

What laws do the countries in the EU, such as France, have on the books for reducing emissions? I would imagine they are similar to what the UK has as the EU is the leader in the world for laws to battle climate impacts.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1901
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:32 pm

uta999 wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
uta999 wrote:
However, often overlooked is the fact that high speed rail costs around £100B per 100 miles of track, takes 20 years to build, and demolishes more houses, communities, fields, woodland and decimates more AONB than a few extra flights at LHR. The electricity used is a very minor matter when it comes to HSR.

Rubbish. Typical cost is < 10 billion € per 100 miles of 2-way track, even accounting for significant tunnel and bridge construction. TBH, rail projects are often subject to the same NIMBY'ism as any other construction project so it's cheaper and faster to put it in a tunnel than to fight with all the residents and buy the fields and woodland.


UK HS2 is costing £106B for a little over 100 miles FYI.

That's just extremely poor planning TBH. Are the rails made of pure gold?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11825
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:37 pm

Qazar wrote:
Humans are funny, aren't they?

- Build airport far away from the city so that you have room for expansion and you don't have to worry about bothering people with noise
- Years later developers discover there is a lot of land around that new airport and some may like to live there because they travel a lot (or for enthusiasts.. LOL)
- More people buy homes there (knowing there is a major airport) because "Hey, that's a really neat development... and nah, the airplanes don't bother me!"
- Then all of a sudden noise becomes a problem.... You didn't know what an airplane engine sounds like?

I'm surprised they don't want to shut down the whole thing!

I think London, as for New York (JFK, LGA, EWR), should look at efficiency and consolidate all 4 major airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Lutton and Stansted) into one GIGA AIRPORT off some location somewhere outside London.... A monstrosity with 8 runways 8 terminals (you name it) ... Also, adopt a law that the area surrounding the airport is protected for future expansion and no one can willingly move there, or around there, and start complaining about the noise! This way environmentalists get to be happy at the reduced carbon footprint 1 airport will generate versus 4; while airport authorities gain efficiencies and reduced costs!


My feelings exactly, just build a giant monstrous airport in the middle of the North Sea, serving: Amsterdam (the Netherlands), London, Brussels (Belgium), (and perhaps even Paris). Build a hyperloop system to it, et voila, many of the inter European routes are served with hyperloops and intercontinental travel is concentrated in one place. With the hyperloop it should be possible to connect to the relevant city within the hour. It could be paid for by selling the land of all the airports for real estate development. Problems solved and an environmentally friendly solution (and keeps us connected to our British-friends, so it would serve as a great symbol as well). Ah well, if only someone would give me an order to do a visibility study 8-)
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
YIMBY
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:56 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
uta999 wrote:
YIMBY wrote:

When the electric train departs, the additional marginal energy is taken from fossil fuels. Nuclear and wind energy is always used first. Train companies may directly or indirectly support building ecolocigally sustainable energy sources. That 100 % renewable/fossil free is quite white wash anyway.

Nevertheless, the energy consumption per pax in train is usually considerably less than in plane, though high speed and low load factor may occasionally turn it upside down. There are very different calculations circling around.


However, often overlooked is the fact that high speed rail costs around £100B per 100 miles of track, takes 20 years to build, and demolishes more houses, communities, fields, woodland and decimates more AONB than a few extra flights at LHR. The electricity used is a very minor matter when it comes to HSR.


That is not a fair assumption as the main costs (for the UK HS2) stem from compensation and bad supervision.

I know it does not count as HSR but still there are 200km/h+ possible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel

160km of tunnel with 115km of track build for $10B. For half the costs of the HS2 they probably could build one tunnel from London to Birmingham without destroying anything on the surface.


Very interesting idea.

To build a double track electric railway through the forest costs about 10 M€/km. For challenging terrain it could be twice as much and for easy terrain half of that. Anything more is land acquisition, compensation and demolition costs. Tight environments like cities might add logistics costs.

Building a tunnel costs about 5 M€/km for good rock, for bad rock 10-20 M€/km. England is presumably bad rock, but anyway you are probably very right that it might be cheaper to build a long tunnel. Building tunnel under land is much cheaper than under sea or through a mountain, because you can bore frequent holes to the ground for logistics, ventilation etc. Otherwise the logistics in the long tunnel would add exponential costs. Anyway, the safety costs may explode, I have no idea how much.

I just cannot understand how the British can plan to spend so much for a normal railway. Neither do I capture why the runway costs such a sum that in any normal country would be sufficient to connect all airports (LHR, LCY, LGW, STN, LTN) with a fast railway.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1901
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling

Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:20 pm

Tugger wrote:
But isn't is the private company Heathrow Airport Holdings that is seeking to expand Heathrow and not the UK government?

If tied to their approval of the plan, then that gets into every private business that applies for a business license as the government is "approving" those too. Isn't it also the government that issue birth certificates (to go back to my overly extreme example)?

Tugg

I take it that in this case here, the 'government activity' was to grant permission to Heathrow Airport Holdings to go ahead with the project. So yes, issuing a business license or a birth certificate would be subject to the same rules. However, the government only needs to show that this business license or birth certificate moves the UK forward on its path to zero emissions, i. e. a new business might be required to show how they plan to limit emissions. The depth of such an analysis will need to be set by the government; likely more for larger businesses (like an airport or a powerplant) than for smaller ones (like a pub). A birth certificate could be covered by the government under a blanket statement that a human, by himself, does not consume fossile fuels and thus does not contribute to the CO2 budget. Or you could make a law "Every citizen shall work towards the national zero-emissions goal". Etc.

The government just must consider the climate impact of everything it does.

Quoting the judge:
But despite the ruling, the judge Lord Justice Lindblom said an expansion has not been ruled out.

He said: "Our decision should be properly understood. We have not decided, and could not decide, that there will be no third runway at Heathrow.

"We have not found that a national policy statement (NPS) supporting this project is necessarily incompatible with the UK's commitment to reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate change under the Paris Agreement, or with any other policy the government may adopt or international obligation it may undertake.

"The consequence of our decision is that the government will now have the opportunity to reconsider the NPS in accordance with the clear statutory requirements that parliament has imposed."

The judge added that the court's decision was "not concerned with the merits" of a Heathrow expansion, or of doing nothing to increase the UK's aviation capacity.

"Those matters are the government's responsibility and the government's alone," he said.

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