Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Noshow wrote:It is the one at Gatwick.
Which one?
edealinfo wrote:As far as I recall, the 3rd runway was approved a few years ago.
1) Has there been any progress....meaning have they acquired the land for it and demolished al the structures on it.
2) Has the runway construction begun? If not, what are the general proposed dates for it?
3) When it a realistic timeframe for when the first flight will land on the third runway?
Thanks.
Arion640 wrote:The opening up of Gatwick's second runway will be welcome though.
Arion640 wrote:The opening up of Gatwick's second runway will be welcome though.
skipness1E wrote:It's cleared the highest court in the land. Unless explicitly decide to legislate against the policy? Is that a manifesto commitment?
Funding is now the main issue IMHO.
chunhimlai wrote:To be honest, to compete to nearby EU and ME airport, HAL have to think about 4th runway once 3rd runway completed.
Instead, I prefer Heathrow Hub project with new north runway on the 3rd runway site and extended concourse.
bols59 wrote:It just seems London doesn't want any visitors that might inconvenience them. This has gone on for far too long. I'm very happy we finally built a third runway here at SEA. Although I need to do a dive into how much it's sped up arrivals and departures, because the vids I've watched at SEA don't seem to have shorter departure lines, but it may just be a rush hour effect.
edealinfo wrote:As far as I recall, the 3rd runway was approved a few years ago.
chunhimlai wrote:To be honest, to compete to nearby EU and ME airport, HAL have to think about 4th runway once 3rd runway completed.
Instead, I prefer Heathrow Hub project with new north runway on the 3rd runway site and extended concourse.
Noshow wrote:If they want to expand significantly they should move the entire location to a more distant place well connected by fast rail. Selling land in west London will yield enough. Post Brexit I would move it more towards the industrial and population centres up north.
chunhimlai wrote:To be honest, to compete to nearby EU and ME airport, HAL have to think about 4th runway once 3rd runway completed.
bols59 wrote:It just seems London doesn't want any visitors that might inconvenience them.
edealinfo wrote:As far as I recall, the 3rd runway was approved a few years ago.
Vicenza wrote:chunhimlai wrote:To be honest, to compete to nearby EU and ME airport, HAL have to think about 4th runway once 3rd runway completed.
Could you possibly suggest/explain where a 4th runway would even possibly be located?????
Noshow wrote:If they want to expand significantly they should move the entire location to a more distant place well connected by fast rail. Selling land in west London will yield enough. Post Brexit I would move it more towards the industrial and population centres up north.
Vicenza wrote:chunhimlai wrote:To be honest, to compete to nearby EU and ME airport, HAL have to think about 4th runway once 3rd runway completed.
Could you possibly suggest/explain where a 4th runway would even possibly be located?????
vhtje wrote:edealinfo wrote:As far as I recall, the 3rd runway was approved a few years ago.
Please do not spread misinformation. The third runway is not approved.
The proposed third runway to the north of the current airport was adopted as Government policy back in 2016.
In February 2020 the Court of Appeal ruled government's decision to proceed with building the third runway was unlawful, due to incompatibility of the decision with Government environment policy, and with the Paris Agreement. That meant no further progress (i.e. making planning applications) could proceed. Heathrow Airports Limited (HAL) appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court.
In December 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of HAL and lifted the ban on the third runway, meaning HAL can now proceed with obtaining the needed various planning application consents. But the pandemic stalled progress.
It is, therefore, not “approved”, as there are the various planning applications to be obtained before any construction can begin. That planning approval process will take further years to obtain.
Noshow wrote:If they want to expand significantly they should move the entire location to a more distant place well connected by fast rail. Selling land in west London will yield enough. Post Brexit I would move it more towards the industrial and population centres up north.
scbriml wrote:Noshow wrote:If they want to expand significantly they should move the entire location to a more distant place well connected by fast rail. Selling land in west London will yield enough. Post Brexit I would move it more towards the industrial and population centres up north.
Fast rail? Like the the much-delayed, now-truncated and vastly-overbudget HS2?
FluidFlow wrote:I just wonder if it wouldn't be better to build a new airport east of Gravesend. Yeah its swampy area and there are a few little towns, but on the other side half of your noise pollution will be over the north sea and you can build 4 runways from the get go.
rutankrd wrote:When some explains how this ( infinitely delayed) project benefits the rest of the UK ( domestic demand) rather than just adding to largely unnecessary transiting traffic flows for instance Bangalore to the Bay Area ( especially when the UULH frames increasingly operate non stop) effectively with genuinely costs including environmental costs , regional costs to roads , utilities , lost housing ,loss of half of Londons fresh water storage facilities ( All those fall on the public purse) in addition to the concrete strip then we can talk.
Gatwick handles far more domestic originating traffic today and is even more slot constrained . Indeed MAG group two airports are pretty close on that score as well.
Add in current governments ever changing border and VISA policies ( especially for our neighbours) what competitive edge Heathrow had on the North Atlantic is steadily being eroded.
An aside it’s quite evident that the days of liberal and unhindered travel is coming to an end , ESTA , ETIAS, the UKs own proposed permission to travel regulations all impact of freedom of movement to a greater or lesser extent .
The assumed right to travel is being subsumed into one of a permission to travel model.( differing debate worth having it own thread however maybe in none Av as it’s political)
Transferring over Heathrow is potentially in long term decline just imho.
European flows will decline , Asia to Europe will avoid the UK ( as they prefer the Schengen VISA entry points for ease of administration ) UULH will drain much of the valuable premium traffic South Asia- USA ( a work in progress)
We see Paris expanding its US offerings and even the trinity’s route development largely targeting mainland airports ( Except American ).
We have even seen airlines such as Air NewZealand move away from London ( indeed Europe entirely)
Whilst the low hanging fruit that fills the back two thirds of the long haul ( won’t be flying those UULH on price for the most part) are increasing those that route on longer haul via the desert and from points rather closer to their homes in the UK in particular.
So imho the project should have been completed thirty years ago however now it’s simply time expired as the industry, wider commerce, financial and indeed leisured travellers have way more alternatives today .
rutankrd wrote:An aside it’s quite evident that the days of liberal and unhindered travel is coming to an end , ESTA , ETIAS, the UKs own proposed permission to travel regulations all impact of freedom of movement to a greater or lesser extent .
scbriml wrote:rutankrd wrote:An aside it’s quite evident that the days of liberal and unhindered travel is coming to an end , ESTA , ETIAS, the UKs own proposed permission to travel regulations all impact of freedom of movement to a greater or lesser extent .
Personally, I can't see the small financial and time cost of filling in a form once every few years as having any noticeable impact on travel.
vhtje wrote:rutankrd wrote:When some explains how this ( infinitely delayed) project benefits the rest of the UK ( domestic demand) rather than just adding to largely unnecessary transiting traffic flows for instance Bangalore to the Bay Area ( especially when the UULH frames increasingly operate non stop) effectively with genuinely costs including environmental costs , regional costs to roads , utilities , lost housing ,loss of half of Londons fresh water storage facilities ( All those fall on the public purse) in addition to the concrete strip then we can talk.
Gatwick handles far more domestic originating traffic today and is even more slot constrained . Indeed MAG group two airports are pretty close on that score as well.
Add in current governments ever changing border and VISA policies ( especially for our neighbours) what competitive edge Heathrow had on the North Atlantic is steadily being eroded.
An aside it’s quite evident that the days of liberal and unhindered travel is coming to an end , ESTA , ETIAS, the UKs own proposed permission to travel regulations all impact of freedom of movement to a greater or lesser extent .
The assumed right to travel is being subsumed into one of a permission to travel model.( differing debate worth having it own thread however maybe in none Av as it’s political)
Transferring over Heathrow is potentially in long term decline just imho.
European flows will decline , Asia to Europe will avoid the UK ( as they prefer the Schengen VISA entry points for ease of administration ) UULH will drain much of the valuable premium traffic South Asia- USA ( a work in progress)
We see Paris expanding its US offerings and even the trinity’s route development largely targeting mainland airports ( Except American ).
We have even seen airlines such as Air NewZealand move away from London ( indeed Europe entirely)
Whilst the low hanging fruit that fills the back two thirds of the long haul ( won’t be flying those UULH on price for the most part) are increasing those that route on longer haul via the desert and from points rather closer to their homes in the UK in particular.
So imho the project should have been completed thirty years ago however now it’s simply time expired as the industry, wider commerce, financial and indeed leisured travellers have way more alternatives today .
All excellent points, very well made. However, one point you forgot is how popular London is as a destination in its own right. It’s in the top 3 visited cities worldwide.
https://www.mastercard.com/news/insights/2019/global-destination-cities-index-2019/
scbriml wrote:rutankrd wrote:An aside it’s quite evident that the days of liberal and unhindered travel is coming to an end , ESTA , ETIAS, the UKs own proposed permission to travel regulations all impact of freedom of movement to a greater or lesser extent .
Personally, I can't see the small financial and time cost of filling in a form once every few years as having any noticeable impact on travel.
rutankrd wrote:Add in current governments ever changing border and VISA policies ( especially for our neighbours) what competitive edge Heathrow had on the North Atlantic is steadily being eroded.
Metchalus wrote:edealinfo wrote:As far as I recall, the 3rd runway was approved a few years ago.
1) Has there been any progress....meaning have they acquired the land for it and demolished al the structures on it.
2) Has the runway construction begun? If not, what are the general proposed dates for it?
3) When it a realistic timeframe for when the first flight will land on the third runway?
Thanks.
1) They own a considerable number of houses in the area but they don't own all of the actual land.
2) No and there aren't any really.
3) If they started construction today around 2025. But that's a massive if and it honestly may never happen.
skipness1E wrote:rutankrd wrote:Add in current governments ever changing border and VISA policies ( especially for our neighbours) what competitive edge Heathrow had on the North Atlantic is steadily being eroded.
Except for the small detail that the US carriers are going to have their biggest summer ever at LHR this year, United have been growing LHR not at the expense of FRA which his a fortress STAR Alliance hub but feeding US domestic traffic to London via their hubs. London is a bigger station than the FRA hub for United.
And American funnel the full weight of their domestic network to Europe via LHR with BA. That's not showing evidence of decline, indeed BA continue to add smaller and smaller US niche destinations on their own. The strength of the dollar means there's not been a better time to visit the UK in recent years.