Heathrow

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Heathrow - yet another delay on a decision - the government is still running scared of this and the latest delay means they can brush it under the carpet until after the Mayoral elections.


With so many business leaders crying out for increased air capacity are they putting party before country?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Heathrow - yet another delay on a decision - the government is still running scared of this and the latest delay means they can brush it under the carpet until after the Mayoral elections.


With so many business leaders crying out for increased air capacity are they putting party before country?

Yes.Next question?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Yes.Next question?

Did the Labour party do the same?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Did the Labour party do the same?

With airport expansion you mean? I don't recall there being such a clamour for it. Cameron set up a commission and said a decision would be announced and now an extra (convenient) delay. A lot of people will not like the decision - they still need to make one.

 

[Benfleet A1]

The Stanstead expansion has gone very quite as well.

 

[mattitouk]

This airport debacle has been going on for so long (Heathrow about 20 years nearly) IMO. It's like kids in the playground fighting, nobody seems to want it (politically) but each also dont want the other to win, incase they have the upper hand.

I was at Canary Wharf tube station the other week, and the ad boards were covered with "Vote Heathrow" propaganda and when I got to London Bridge, I saw the same thing but "Vote Gatwick" Propaganda.

My solution, would just give them all (Heathrow / Gatwick & Stansted) each an additional runway to increase passenger traffic and reduce night flights.

No one really in their right mind can really argue about aircraft noise at Heathrow, considering there has been an airport there since 1929 or 1946 (depending on your point of view) But lacks the realistic space & expensive space for expansion, however it is obvioulsy London's No1 airport in terms of size and connections.

Gatwick on the other hand has been recently touted as the fastest growing major London airport Hub (due to Heathrow's long delayed expansion & major airlnes with long routes not being able to get the landing slots they need at Heathrow).

And last but not least, there is Stansted, which is possibly the most viable option due to the large amount of open space and free land around it's parimenter.

 

[dloman]

This airport debacle has been going on for so long (Heathrow about 20 years nearly) IMO. It's like kids in the playground fighting, nobody seems to want it (politically) but each also dont want the other to win, incase they have the upper hand.

I was at Canary Wharf tube station the other week, and the ad boards were covered with "Vote Heathrow" propaganda and when I got to London Bridge, I saw the same thing but "Vote Gatwick" Propaganda.

My solution, would just give them all (Heathrow / Gatwick & Stansted) each an additional runway to increase passenger traffic and reduce night flights.

No one really in their right mind can really argue about aircraft noise at Heathrow, considering there has been an airport there since 1929 or 1946 (depending on your point of view) But lacks the realistic space & expensive space for expansion, however it is obvioulsy London's No1 airport in terms of size and connections.

Gatwick on the other hand has been recently touted as the fastest growing major London airport Hub (due to Heathrow's long delayed expansion & major airlnes with long routes not being able to get the landing slots they need at Heathrow).

And last but not least, there is Stansted, which is possibly the most viable option due to the large amount of open space and free land around it's parimenter.

Stansted is the fastest growing figure up around 15% on last year and on course to get close to 25 million pax this year all from one terminal. I guess the argument is they should possibly get the new runway and another terminal whilst they are at it.

 

[londonblue]

Stansted is the fastest growing figure up around 15% on last year and on course to get close to 25 million pax this year all from one terminal. I guess the argument is they should possibly get the new runway and another terminal whilst they are at it.

These days fastest growing just means they have the most spare capacity. Adding another runway is really just rewarding them for not being maxed out.

 

[mrsblue]

More flights once the thing wherever has been built.

Yet they tell us global warming is increasing:hilarious:

 

[MK Shrimper]

A 3rd runway at Heathrow has been approved by ministers. Climate change? Who cares! Not Theresa May obviously.

 

[superblue24]

A 3rd runway at Heathrow has been approved by ministers. Climate change? Who cares! Not Theresa May obviously.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/21/heathrow-expansion-will-boost-air-quality.

The issue of needing to expand was never going to go away until it got passed. Be that today, tomorrow, 5 years, 20 years.....The campaign to have the third runway built would always be there and now the proposal has been approved, the fallout just needs to be handled as best it can. In 50 years time no one will really care about the hassle it caused, but instead will see an improved airport with improved travel links. You can't stop growth forever.

 

[MK Shrimper]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/21/heathrow-expansion-will-boost-air-quality.

The issue of needing to expand was never going to go away until it got passed. Be that today, tomorrow, 5 years, 20 years.....The campaign to have the third runway built would always be there and now the proposal has been approved, the fallout just needs to be handled as best it can. In 50 years time no one will really care about the hassle it caused, but instead will see an improved airport with improved travel links. You can't stop growth forever.

No we'll probably be 6 feet under, but our children & grandchildren may care. Short term thinking, short term gains, long term damage.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

No we'll probably be 6 feet under, but our children & grandchildren may care. Short term thinking, short term gains, long term damage.

Did you mean to post this on the Phil Brown thread?

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

Goldsmith preparing to resign his Richmond Park seat and stand as an Independent in the by-election. Another little problem on the horizon for May..............following Witney, the Lib Dems must be smacking their lips in anticipation.

 

[londonblue]

No we'll probably be 6 feet under, but our children & grandchildren may care. Short term thinking, short term gains, long term damage.

Not necessarily. Most of the pollution at Heathrow (and other airports for that matter) is created by aircraft on the ground waiting their turn to taxi and take off. With a new runway the "waiting on the ground" time will be far less. Moreover, at the moment a lot of the time aeroplanes can't land immediately at Heathrow, and have to be stacked. Each loop of the stack adds 4 minutes to the flight (stacks are shaped like an athletics track and planes fly each 1/4 section in one minute). If a plane does say 3-4 loops (probably about average) then you've added 12-16 minutes to the flight. Multiply that by the number of aeroplanes that land at Heathrow each day, and you have a whole load of unnecessary pollution that can be reduced with the reduction in congestion a new runway will offer.

Added to that, over the years new engines and aeroplanes have reduced not just noise, but pollution levels as well. In future a complete redesign of controlled airspace around airports to make their flightpaths more fuel efficient will also help. (That may also help GA, but that's a different issue.)

I'm not an expert, and don't know if these will offset the pollution the extra aeroplanes will bring (and logic would dictate this won't be carbon neutral) but it really needs proper investigation before anyone can say for certain what the overall effect will be.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Not necessarily. Most of the pollution at Heathrow (and other airports for that matter) is created by aircraft on the ground waiting their turn to taxi and take off. With a new runway the "waiting on the ground" time will be far less. Moreover, at the moment a lot of the time aeroplanes can't land immediately at Heathrow, and have to be stacked. Each loop of the stack adds 4 minutes to the flight (stacks are shaped like an athletics track and planes fly each 1/4 section in one minute). If a plane does say 3-4 loops (probably about average) then you've added 12-16 minutes to the flight. Multiply that by the number of aeroplanes that land at Heathrow each day, and you have a whole load of unnecessary pollution that can be reduced with the reduction in congestion a new runway will offer.

Added to that, over the years new engines and aeroplanes have reduced not just noise, but pollution levels as well. In future a complete redesign of controlled airspace around airports to make their flightpaths more fuel efficient will also help. (That may also help GA, but that's a different issue.)

I'm not an expert, and don't know if these will offset the pollution the extra aeroplanes will bring (and logic would dictate this won't be carbon neutral) but it really needs proper investigation before anyone can say for certain what the overall effect will be.

But isn't it the old adage, that if you build another runway, you're just going to invite more aircraft to fly to the UK? We're not even meeting our Climate Change targets in relation to the Paris Agreement now, you may as well tear them up.

 

[rigsby]

But isn't it the old adage, that if you build another runway, you're just going to invite more aircraft to fly to the UK? We're not even meeting our Climate Change targets in relation to the Paris Agreement now, you may as well tear them up.

So what would be your answer for international travel for the next 50 years?

 

[MK Shrimper]

So what would be your answer for international travel for the next 50 years?

We have enough airports.

What's your answer to deal with the very real threat of climate change? Close your eyes and hope it goes away?

 

[londonblue]

But isn't it the old adage, that if you build another runway, you're just going to invite more aircraft to fly to the UK? We're not even meeting our Climate Change targets in relation to the Paris Agreement now, you may as well tear them up.

That's why I said the improvement may not make up for the increased traffic. What I'm really saying is that it's more complicated than saying more planes = more pollution. There is probably a tipping point, but where that is, is difficult to say.

This runway won't be built until after the Paris Agreement deadline date, so to me that's a bit of a red herring. The government needs to do more now (like the Labour government did) so that any potential increase from aviation is already offset.

 

[rigsby]

We have enough airports.

What's your answer to deal with the very real threat of climate change? Close your eyes and hope it goes away?

So your avoiding the question by playing the climate change card.

We are adding another runway, not building another airport. Bigger population means more flights. Should we build any more houses?