So, I understand that capacity is coming back FAST on LHR such that it will be back to pre-COVID levels before you say Jack Robinson. So, what's the status on London Heathrow's (LHR) third runway? Construction commenced? Why didn't they use the downtime during COVID's 2 year run, to bulldoze things in their way and get the runway built?

[twoid][/twoid]

edealinfo wrote:

So, I understand that capacity is coming back FAST on LHR such that it will be back to pre-COVID levels before you say Jack Robinson. So, what's the status on London Heathrow's (LHR) third runway? Construction commenced? Why didn't they use the downtime during COVID's 2 year run, to bulldoze things in their way and get the runway built?

Nowhere near close to construction. A court said it could go ahead, but then funding got pulled, but the flailing government has said it's not impossible last month. I doubt it'll ever happen, which is fine, it's just too big of a political problem.

hpff wrote:

but the flailing government has said it's not impossible last month.

God, these politicians will come up with these statements that doesn't rule it out but doesn't make any firm commitment to get it going. Therefore neither those that support and oppose it can blame the politicians. The English language sure is a boon to them.

A321X and 737Max10 are changing the world. Third runway is fine. doesn't need to be a long one.

PhilipBass wrote:

A321X and 737Max10 are changing the world. Third runway is fine. doesn't need to be a long one.

Isn't the runway size already finalized? It's not like they will reopen the process to shorten the runway to make it more palatable?

It's been to the Supreme Court and approved.
There's very, very few buildings to be demolished, I know, I live nearby. So the legal process has been exhausted and it's now a case of agreeing funding and planning permission. But formal approval has been given to proceed from the highest court in the land.

Well, Boris Johnson is against it for personal political BS, but hopefully, he will soon be gone.... No doubt there was behind the scenes BS

If I understand correctly all the opposition from the NIMBYs and Green lobby etc has been bashed away by the Supreme Court. It's now just a question of raising the cash, which in theory shouldn't be hard for a bunch of infrastructure funds with deep pockets owning the airport, but that's where the real politics starts. Sure Heathrow Airport Holdings has big debts, but obviously massive revenues and more to come. Heathrow is in a battle with the CAA to raise airport fees, in effect getting the airlines and the travelling public to pay it more money which can be put towards 'infrastructure' or let's be honest-dividends to its owners, but this is also the airport group that has dawdled at a snail pace the expansion of T2 when of course the pandemic was the perfect time to make real progress. John Holland-Kaye even had the audacity to sit in front of a parliament select committee during the pandemic time saying it may not ever need to build the third runway if traffic never comes back. We all know that was utter garbage coming out of his mouth, we all knew it would come back and an airport that was full in 2003 would reach capacity again. We also all knew this was another ruse to try and get airport fees up saying there's not the money for the current 'infrastructure investment' because of drop in pax. All BS but it meant plenty of valuable time has been lost. IMO the airport is being run like a cash cow for the owners with the bare minimum being spent on 'infrastructure'. Building a third runway is a lot of money. I can't see any meaningful investment into the airport unless the government takes over. I mean when you look at the pathetic speed the T2 expansion is taking we could well be in the 2030s before the shovels start in Sipson and Harmondsworth. This at an airport with what If I'm not mistaken has the highest fees in the world.

Look at the "Grand Ouest Airport". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A9ro ... rand_Ouest

The project dated back from the 70's, similar to CDG but for Nantes.

It got moving in the 2000's, approved in 2008, private money was there, but there was plenty of political opposition. Finally in 2016 it was put to a referendum of the region, and the vote was in favor of the airport. Yet there was still strong local opposition, and not much political points would be won by going ahead, arresting protesters etc., so it was abandoned in 2018.

I could well see LHR's 3rd runway going that route.

I figure that by the time this runway is completed, we will have transport aircraft that need little or no runways! STOL/VTVL.

Chemist wrote:

I figure that by the time this runway is completed, we will have transport aircraft that need little or no runways! STOL/VTVL.

ha ha, good one.

flipdewaf wrote:

edealinfo wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

. Planning takes a lot of time and permissions are, quite rightly hard to come by and need much consultation. I have a lot of trouble with planning for my properties but when I see the finished articles I’m happy that it was difficult, heaven forbid should we end up with horrible sprawling strip malls US style.
Fred

You mean that in the UK, you do the planning and getting permissions, AFTER a proposal (3rd runway) has been approved? If so, isn't the UK putting its cart before it's horse? Yes, I know, you'll still use carriages, and like living in a different era, but this is 2022.

You’re going to be bulldozing 10s of thousands of homes potentially, you reckon there are going to be no legal disputes?

Yes it’s 2022, why should that preclude careful and diligent panning and consultation to get the best solution? The uk Hans a lot of historical and cultural areas that we need to be careful to preserve for future generations to enjoy and not just create concrete deserts to please Joe businessman.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There aren't 10's of thousands of homes in Harmondsworth.

It's a small village that is already half empty.

There are many vested interests that do not want this to happen and its a lot easier to stop something than make it happen. I am not holding my breath for the 3rd runway. The current UK gov are supposed to be all about how the UK can power ahead now they are finally free of the EU shackles, yet they are opposed to the 3rd runway.
As politics everywhere moves to the lowest common denominator and short term thinking, I struggle to see where the champion for R3 will appear

We’re in a bubble of post Covid demand but high (and continually rising) energy prices, and the climate crisis changing from projections to observable reality, will flatten long term demand. A third runway isn’t needed and is never going to happen.

PhilipBass wrote:

A321X and 737Max10 are changing the world. Third runway is fine. doesn't need to be a long one.

No! LHR needed a third runway 40 years ago. Long haul narrow bodies mean LHR really needs 4 runways. The 4th runway probably doesn't need to be long, but it might be less efficient for narrow bodied aircraft to taxi all the way across LHR just to use the one shorter runway. If there were 4 runways at LHR, it might be possible to consider relocating Northolt RAF base to LHR and redevelop the land where Northolt is currently located.

It will never happen imho.

cedarjet wrote:

We’re in a bubble of post Covid demand but high (and continually rising) energy prices, and the climate crisis changing from projections to observable reality, will flatten long term demand. A third runway isn’t needed and is never going to happen.

What planet are you on? The runway was needed 20 years ago, and pax demand is only going to be higher in the future. The discussion should already be about the 4th Runway and 7th and 8th terminals. 2019 isn't going to be the peak of world air travel demand, nor in 2004 was LHRs.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

No! LHR needed a third runway 40 years ago.

Forty years ago, Heathrow HAD a third runway….

How can Doris bang on about net zero and green levies and still go ahead with this?

vhtje wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

No! LHR needed a third runway 40 years ago.

Forty years ago, Heathrow HAD a third runway….

But unfortunately it intersected 9R/27L and didn't add anything to capacity. What has been needed are third and fourth runways parallel to the two runways currently operated at LHR.

CarbonFibre wrote:

How can Doris bang on about net zero and green levies and still go ahead with this?

How about airlines offsetting carbon emissions so they are net zero? There is your net zero. Oh, and let's not forget that aeroplanes today are cleaner than in the past, will only become cleaner, and the impact increasing use of SAF will have on sustainability. The green lobby makes the mistake of constantly attacking the infrastructure as the issue, whether its roads or runways. I.e. the world can only be a place to live if we all move back to mud huts and do nothing with our lives etc. The reality is people become wealthier, businesses grow and demand for travel will only increase. Infrastructure needs to develop to accommodate that. The point is not to restrict that demand, which only weakens the economy and passes business to other hubs, but to allow it to grow in a manner that is more sustainable.

Just mix-mode the two existing runways, allow regular simultaneous landings and take-offs and a third runway won't be needed.

eurotrader85 wrote:

Well, Boris Johnson is against it for personal political BS, but hopefully, he will soon be gone.... No doubt there was behind the scenes BS

If I understand correctly all the opposition from the NIMBYs and Green lobby etc has been bashed away by the Supreme Court. It's now just a question of raising the cash, which in theory shouldn't be hard for a bunch of infrastructure funds with deep pockets owning the airport, but that's where the real politics starts. Sure Heathrow Airport Holdings has big debts, but obviously massive revenues and more to come. Heathrow is in a battle with the CAA to raise airport fees, in effect getting the airlines and the travelling public to pay it more money which can be put towards 'infrastructure' or let's be honest-dividends to its owners, but this is also the airport group that has dawdled at a snail pace the expansion of T2 when of course the pandemic was the perfect time to make real progress. John Holland-Kaye even had the audacity to sit in front of a parliament select committee during the pandemic time saying it may not ever need to build the third runway if traffic never comes back. We all know that was utter garbage coming out of his mouth, we all knew it would come back and an airport that was full in 2003 would reach capacity again. We also all knew this was another ruse to try and get airport fees up saying there's not the money for the current 'infrastructure investment' because of drop in pax. All BS but it meant plenty of valuable time has been lost. IMO the airport is being run like a cash cow for the owners with the bare minimum being spent on 'infrastructure'. Building a third runway is a lot of money. I can't see any meaningful investment into the airport unless the government takes over. I mean when you look at the pathetic speed the T2 expansion is taking we could well be in the 2030s before the shovels start in Sipson and Harmondsworth. This at an airport with what If I'm not mistaken has the highest fees in the world.

He promised his constituents that he would oppose it, so of course when the vote for it came he was (god help us though much worse was to come) Foreign Secretary, so he went to Afghanistan, for the day, for no reason anyone could ascertain. So he could not vote either way on it.
The main thing to remember about him, for all his fake bluster/pretend eccentricity, like Trump’s fake toughness/business ability, he’s a coward. Always.

TC957 wrote:

Just mix-mode the two existing runways, allow regular simultaneous landings and take-offs and a third runway won't be needed.

Mix mode would only increase movement capacity by less than 15% (70,000 movements per annnum). Not a substitute for a third runway.

Australia will have the new Western Sydney Airport up and running long before LHR gets a new runway

readytotaxi wrote:

Australia will have the new Western Sydney Airport up and running long before LHR gets a new runway

Have you seen how much land is available in Australia compared to the UK?

eurotrader85 wrote:

TC957 wrote:

Just mix-mode the two existing runways, allow regular simultaneous landings and take-offs and a third runway won't be needed.

Mix mode would only increase movement capacity by less than 15% (70,000 movements per annnum). Not a substitute for a third runway.

Keeping aside the discussion on a 3rd runway for now,

LOGICALLY, why hasn't LHR already converted to mix-mode to boost capacity by up to 15%? Has it got do with not enough gates at terminals, or something else?

edealinfo wrote:

eurotrader85 wrote:

TC957 wrote:

Just mix-mode the two existing runways, allow regular simultaneous landings and take-offs and a third runway won't be needed.

Mix mode would only increase movement capacity by less than 15% (70,000 movements per annnum). Not a substitute for a third runway.

Keeping aside the discussion on a 3rd runway for now,

LOGICALLY, why hasn't LHR already converted to mix-mode to boost capacity by up to 15%? Has it got do with not enough gates at terminals, or something else?

First and foremost, LHR’s operations are limited by the Cranford Agreement, which was implemented for noise abatement. It basically states that you use one runway for landings and the other for takeoffs and you can only have takeoffs on 9R when in west flow. Now the government has said recently that they will get rid of it, but it still seems to be in affect because the flying patterns are still the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cranford_ ... prov=sfti1

Also, my understanding is that the single taxiway leading to 9L doesn’t allow for efficient departure sequencing like it does with 9R. But then, it might be moot if you have a dual stream of departures, which wouldn’t be crossing each other’s flight path anyways.

And the runways at LHR are less than 5000 feet apart (different rules compared to the FAA). So even when you have parallel landings, they would be staggered and not simultaneous. Because of the staggered landings, the departures in between them wouldn’t be simultaneous, as well. So, it just wouldn’t be all that efficient and probably wouldn’t make that much of a difference. However, a former colleague who’s a retired FAA controller told me that because LHR’s average plane size is so large, there wouldn’t be that much of a capacity hit compared to simultaneous procedures because the spacing would have to be greater anyways.

And, of course, with a dual flow of simultaneous departures and landings, it would increase the controller workload. Not sure what LHR’s staffing levels are like, but you would need more controllers to manage more complex procedures. Perhaps they just don’t want to implement such a procedure?

Maybe a pilot who flies into LHR regularly or someone working ATC in Europe can chime in.

As someone that has flown regularly into LHR for a long time, I think mixed mode operations would be great. Assigning the departure runway based on which direction the flight is heading to would make sense. Minor restrictions for rwy 09L for some types (Link 56 restricted to code D aircraft).

eurotrader85 wrote:

TC957 wrote:

Just mix-mode the two existing runways, allow regular simultaneous landings and take-offs and a third runway won't be needed.

Mix mode would only increase movement capacity by less than 15% (70,000 movements per annnum). Not a substitute for a third runway.

An additional runway plus mixed mode would increase capacity by a factor of 1.7 compared to 1.5 for just adding the runway. Really both LHR and LGW both need to add 2 runways. It's not just about raw capacity, it's about the ability to handle disruptions to normal service. A US hub handling the number of airplane movements that LHR has would have at least 4 runways. AMS not far away from LHR has 7 runways. I seem to recall that land in the Netherlands is even more dear than it is in the UK.

leader1 wrote:

edealinfo wrote:

eurotrader85 wrote:

Mix mode would only increase movement capacity by less than 15% (70,000 movements per annnum). Not a substitute for a third runway.

Keeping aside the discussion on a 3rd runway for now,

LOGICALLY, why hasn't LHR already converted to mix-mode to boost capacity by up to 15%? Has it got do with not enough gates at terminals, or something else?

First and foremost, LHR’s operations are limited by the Cranford Agreement, which was implemented for noise abatement. It basically states that you use one runway for landings and the other for takeoffs and you can only have takeoffs on 9R when in west flow. Now the government has said recently that they will get rid of it, but it still seems to be in affect because the flying patterns are still the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cranford_ ... prov=sfti1

Also, my understanding is that the single taxiway leading to 9L doesn’t allow for efficient departure sequencing like it does with 9R. But then, it might be moot if you have a dual stream of departures, which wouldn’t be crossing each other’s flight path anyways.

And the runways at LHR are less than 5000 feet apart (different rules compared to the FAA). So even when you have parallel landings, they would be staggered and not simultaneous. Because of the staggered landings, the departures in between them wouldn’t be simultaneous, as well. So, it just wouldn’t be all that efficient and probably wouldn’t make that much of a difference. However, a former colleague who’s a retired FAA controller told me that because LHR’s average plane size is so large, there wouldn’t be that much of a capacity hit compared to simultaneous procedures because the spacing would have to be greater anyways.

And, of course, with a dual flow of simultaneous departures and landings, it would increase the controller workload. Not sure what LHR’s staffing levels are like, but you would need more controllers to manage more complex procedures. Perhaps they just don’t want to implement such a procedure?

Maybe a pilot who flies into LHR regularly or someone working ATC in Europe can chime in.

So operations at LHR should be constrained by a 70 year old agreement? Aircraft are much quieter today than they were in the 1950's.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

leader1 wrote:

edealinfo wrote:

Keeping aside the discussion on a 3rd runway for now,

LOGICALLY, why hasn't LHR already converted to mix-mode to boost capacity by up to 15%? Has it got do with not enough gates at terminals, or something else?

First and foremost, LHR’s operations are limited by the Cranford Agreement, which was implemented for noise abatement. It basically states that you use one runway for landings and the other for takeoffs and you can only have takeoffs on 9R when in west flow. Now the government has said recently that they will get rid of it, but it still seems to be in affect because the flying patterns are still the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cranford_ ... prov=sfti1

Also, my understanding is that the single taxiway leading to 9L doesn’t allow for efficient departure sequencing like it does with 9R. But then, it might be moot if you have a dual stream of departures, which wouldn’t be crossing each other’s flight path anyways.

And the runways at LHR are less than 5000 feet apart (different rules compared to the FAA). So even when you have parallel landings, they would be staggered and not simultaneous. Because of the staggered landings, the departures in between them wouldn’t be simultaneous, as well. So, it just wouldn’t be all that efficient and probably wouldn’t make that much of a difference. However, a former colleague who’s a retired FAA controller told me that because LHR’s average plane size is so large, there wouldn’t be that much of a capacity hit compared to simultaneous procedures because the spacing would have to be greater anyways.

And, of course, with a dual flow of simultaneous departures and landings, it would increase the controller workload. Not sure what LHR’s staffing levels are like, but you would need more controllers to manage more complex procedures. Perhaps they just don’t want to implement such a procedure?

Maybe a pilot who flies into LHR regularly or someone working ATC in Europe can chime in.

So operations at LHR should be constrained by a 70 year old agreement? Aircraft are much quieter today than they were in the 1950's.

I’m not saying it should. If it was up to me, I’d make LHR a four runway airport. I’m just saying that in spite of aircraft being quieter now and the government supposedly scrapping the agreement, it still seems to be in place.

leader1 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

leader1 wrote:

First and foremost, LHR’s operations are limited by the Cranford Agreement, which was implemented for noise abatement. It basically states that you use one runway for landings and the other for takeoffs and you can only have takeoffs on 9R when in west flow. Now the government has said recently that they will get rid of it, but it still seems to be in affect because the flying patterns are still the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cranford_ ... prov=sfti1

Also, my understanding is that the single taxiway leading to 9L doesn’t allow for efficient departure sequencing like it does with 9R. But then, it might be moot if you have a dual stream of departures, which wouldn’t be crossing each other’s flight path anyways.

And the runways at LHR are less than 5000 feet apart (different rules compared to the FAA). So even when you have parallel landings, they would be staggered and not simultaneous. Because of the staggered landings, the departures in between them wouldn’t be simultaneous, as well. So, it just wouldn’t be all that efficient and probably wouldn’t make that much of a difference. However, a former colleague who’s a retired FAA controller told me that because LHR’s average plane size is so large, there wouldn’t be that much of a capacity hit compared to simultaneous procedures because the spacing would have to be greater anyways.

And, of course, with a dual flow of simultaneous departures and landings, it would increase the controller workload. Not sure what LHR’s staffing levels are like, but you would need more controllers to manage more complex procedures. Perhaps they just don’t want to implement such a procedure?

Maybe a pilot who flies into LHR regularly or someone working ATC in Europe can chime in.

So operations at LHR should be constrained by a 70 year old agreement? Aircraft are much quieter today than they were in the 1950's.

I’m not saying it should. If it was up to me, I’d make LHR a four runway airport. I’m just saying that in spite of aircraft being quieter now and the government supposedly scrapping the agreement, it still seems to be in place.

It seems like the political establishment in the UK has perfected the art of never having to make hard decisions about its most important airports during its members' entire careers. Personally I avoid traveling through LHR. It is extremely delay prone and has limited connectivity to Eastern Europe. It's much easier to travel through IST even though I detest the regime in Turkey and hate subsidizing it.

They should have secured the land for - and invested in - a large airport outside of London a long time ago instead of pointlessly trying to expand LHR.
The city needed a World-class 4-runway airport 10 years ago, yet at this rate it may get an inadequate 3-runway one in about 15 years... maybe.
Selling the land LHR sits on would have gone a long way into covering the cost of the new one along with an adequate transport link.

20/20 hindsight, I know ...

One could argue instead that London is doing pretty well with 6, yes SIX, airports all competing against each other, instead of having 2 airports forming an oligopoly like Paris. If anything, London needs to reduce its reliance on a single (very) expensive airport in the shape of Heathrow. Fares to/from London are generally low, one can fly to many European cities from a choice of London airports, and there is a high diversity of airlines ensuring healthy competition over airfares. London's airport system has one of the highest numbers of passengers of cities in the world

They would have expanded it if they really wanted to over all those years. Wouldn't more capacity at LHR end the BA dominance and role?
Now after Brexit and with new longer range point to point narrow body aircraft I don't see it happening ever.

Francoflier wrote:

They should have secured the land for - and invested in - a large airport outside of London a long time ago

Maplin Sands, anyone?

Personally, I prefer LCY via Schiphol to get to London, but The White Horse pub on the Bath road is nice if you're sentenced to Heathrow.

Noshow wrote:

They would have expanded it if they really wanted to over all those years. Wouldn't more capacity at LHR end the BA dominance and role?
Now after Brexit and with new longer range point to point narrow body aircraft I don't see it happening ever.

Most of the "point to point" flights are not really point to point. They are point to hub. Look at AUS-LHR. Lots of the passengers on the BA flight from AUS to LHR are connecting at LHR. The are avoiding flying to a US hub first. In the past they would have flown AUS-DFW-Europe or even further back they would have flown AUS-DFW-JFK-Europe. There is still an need for hubs, but many passengers will overfly hubs that years ago would have been connection hubs.

CarbonFibre wrote:

How can Doris bang on about net zero and green levies and still go ahead with this?

You misunderstand NET zero. It's a paid offset, a con.

Francoflier wrote:

They should have secured the land for - and invested in - a large airport outside of London a long time ago instead of pointlessly trying to expand LHR.
The city needed a World-class 4-runway airport 10 years ago, yet at this rate it may get an inadequate 3-runway one in about 15 years... maybe.
Selling the land LHR sits on would have gone a long way into covering the cost of the new one along with an adequate transport link.

20/20 hindsight, I know ...

Where exactly are you planning on building a new 4 runway airport for London? There's not a single new thing been added to this debate in years. Any new runway for the south east has had multiple enquiries, independent ones at that and the answer always comes back LHR, due to global connectivity driving the biggest ROI by far. Then we go round the circle again, what about LGW which is losing Westjet and China Airlines to LHR? Or STN and the long haul connections of.....Ryanair. If you want to increase our global reach, it was LHR every time. Blair knew it, Cameron learned it after stopping the existing approval, May accepted it and Boris didn't stop it when be became PM. Anyone who thinks long term demand is going away isn't being honest.

skipness1E wrote:

CarbonFibre wrote:

How can Doris bang on about net zero and green levies and still go ahead with this?

You misunderstand NET zero. It's a paid offset, a con.

Boris is the con.

Whatever he promises, whatever he says, it's always a lie, it never happens.

He likes to announce things and expect others to figure out the implementation, financing, etc. Remember the tunnel under the Irish sea ?

skipness1E wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

They should have secured the land for - and invested in - a large airport outside of London a long time ago instead of pointlessly trying to expand LHR.
The city needed a World-class 4-runway airport 10 years ago, yet at this rate it may get an inadequate 3-runway one in about 15 years... maybe.
Selling the land LHR sits on would have gone a long way into covering the cost of the new one along with an adequate transport link.

20/20 hindsight, I know ...

Where exactly are you planning on building a new 4 runway airport for London? There's not a single new thing been added to this debate in years. Any new runway for the south east has had multiple enquiries, independent ones at that and the answer always comes back LHR, due to global connectivity driving the biggest ROI by far. Then we go round the circle again, what about LGW which is losing Westjet and China Airlines to LHR? Or STN and the long haul connections of.....Ryanair. If you want to increase our global reach, it was LHR every time. Blair knew it, Cameron learned it after stopping the existing approval, May accepted it and Boris didn't stop it when be became PM. Anyone who thinks long term demand is going away isn't being honest.

SurpriseLy Boris do not push his dream island again when he become PM

LexPassenger wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

They should have secured the land for - and invested in - a large airport outside of London a long time ago

Maplin Sands, anyone?

Personally, I prefer LCY via Schiphol to get to London, but The White Horse pub on the Bath road is nice if you're sentenced to Heathrow.

Less Maplin Sands more Cublington.

Heathrow could add as many runways as it pleases, but when HAL and the airport operators collectively fall to pieces after an aircraft have vacated the runway, what’s the point? You land, and then you wait 20 minutes for the stand to clear. You taxi towards the stand, but nobody’s there to turn on the lead-in lights, so you’re stuck on the taxiway for another 20 minutes. Then the lights come on, but there’s no-one to drive the airbridge, so you wait another 20 minutes for that someone to show up.

That’s the reality of Heathrow, and that reality predates Covid by quite some measure. It’s a cesspool of managerial incompetence, and a prime example of what cost cutting at all costs will lead to. No amount of runways will ever fix that.

LexPassenger wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

They should have secured the land for - and invested in - a large airport outside of London a long time ago

Maplin Sands, anyone?

Personally, I prefer LCY via Schiphol to get to London, but The White Horse pub on the Bath road is nice if you're sentenced to Heathrow.

Rejected for sound technical, political and environmental reasons in the early 70's, did not stop King Idiot when London Mayor to propose it with his name attached, to get some press and avoid doing his actual job for a news cycle.

From a passenger standpoint I don't trust Heathrow flights to not miss connections. In the old days low ceiling terminals were a pain with bus transfer and long lines. Now the terminals got improved but I -being a fast walker and travelling light- missed several long hauls due to long walking distances and long lines and delayed inbounds. I am not taking the risk.
For flights ex London it might still be okay. I will find out soon myself.

Aesma wrote:

Look at the "Grand Ouest Airport". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A9ro ... rand_Ouest

The project dated back from the 70's, similar to CDG but for Nantes.

It got moving in the 2000's, approved in 2008, private money was there, but there was plenty of political opposition. Finally in 2016 it was put to a referendum of the region, and the vote was in favor of the airport. Yet there was still strong local opposition, and not much political points would be won by going ahead, arresting protesters etc., so it was abandoned in 2018.

I could well see LHR's 3rd runway going that route.

Yes, but Heathrow actually has demand for more capacity. Grand Ouest was a vanity project by certain well connected local politicians… absolutely ridiculous project and ridiculous that it took so long to get canned.

Considering NQY can handle aircraft the size of a 744 I think BA could promote that route on a seasonal basis whilst they have healthy slot capacity.

As a quick gateway to Cornwall for Londoners on what is ( for those that don’t know ) the most awful 5+ hour drive due to the road network, routing and sheer volume of traffic.

If you don’t know, Cornwall is a major tourist destination in the U.K., due it’s beautiful dramatic coastlines, beaches and surfing hotspot.