Further delay over 3rd Heathrow runway

[bungle]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7825802.stm

 

Let's hope there are enough Labour MPs to be able to block this plan. Also, I see some protestors (including Emma Thompson and Alistair McGowan) have bought a bit of land which the Government/BAA would need to buy to go ahead with expansion. Some extra fun and games - but what we actually need is the right decision - no 3rd runway.

[stevegrant]

Some extra fun and games - but what we actually need is the right decision - no 3rd runway.

Why would that be the right decision?

[South City Si]

Compulsory purchase order anyone?

[Ponty]

Yeah, why's that the right decision? It seems to me that it would make the busiest airport in the world more efficient and, not inconsiderably, safer.

[Scummer]

Should build in the Thames Estuary.

[Gemmel]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7825802.stm

 

Let's hope there are enough Labour MPs to be able to block this plan. Also, I see some protestors (including Emma Thompson and Alistair McGowan) have bought a bit of land which the Government/BAA would need to buy to go ahead with expansion. Some extra fun and games - but what we actually need is the right decision - no 3rd runway.

 

It is going ahead, the land won't even cause any delays.

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

Yeah, why's that the right decision? It seems to me that it would make the busiest international airport in the world more efficient and, not inconsiderably, safer.

 

I agree, next stop boarding gates at Gatwick which are not further away than your destination.

[Ponty]

international

Yes, international, we all know that Silverstone race circuit on British GP Sunday is the busiest airport in the world, and they don't even use a runway.

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

Yes, international, we all know that Silverstone race circuit on British GP Sunday is the busiest airport in the world, and they don't even use a runway.

 

I meant as opposed to Chicago O'Hare which, I believe, has more flights than Thiefrow but most of them Domestic.

 

Sorry, but I'm not letting Bridge Too Far get ahead of me in the pedant stakes.

[bridge too far]

I meant as opposed to Chicago O'Hare which, I believe, has more flights than Thiefrow but most of them Domestic.

 

Sorry, but I'm not letting Bridge Too Far get ahead of me in the pedant stakes.

 

I haven't uttered a word!

 

:shock:

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

I haven't uttered a word!

 

:shock:

 

I can't afford to take chances...

[Hatch]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7825802.stm

 

Let's hope there are enough Labour MPs to be able to block this plan. Also, I see some protestors (including Emma Thompson and Alistair McGowan) have bought a bit of land which the Government/BAA would need to buy to go ahead with expansion. Some extra fun and games - but what we actually need is the right decision - no 3rd runway.

 

Apparently the prostestors purchase of the land can be blocked if found to be purchased for 'the wrong reasons'

 

oh, and to add, even as someone who lives in the flight path of Heathrow, I am still for a 3rd runway.

[Weston Super Saint]

Apparently the prostestors purchase of the land can be blocked if found to be purchased for 'the wrong reasons'

 

oh, and to add, even as someone who lives in the flight path of Heathrow, I am still for a 3rd runway.

 

They've only bought the land to make a profit.

[Sheaf Saint]

It made me chuckle when I heard about this on the radio today. Somebody from BAA is claiming that Heathrow will need to have a 3rd runway if it is to survive.

 

WTF!? The busiest international airport in the world would collapse and shut down if they don't build a 3rd runway? I seriously doubt that somehow.

[Sheaf Saint]

oh, and to add, even as someone who lives in the flight path of Heathrow, I am still for a 3rd runway.

 

Mind if I ask why?

[stevegrant]

It made me chuckle when I heard about this on the radio today. Somebody from BAA is claiming that Heathrow will need to have a 3rd runway if it is to survive.

 

WTF!? The busiest international airport in the world would collapse and shut down if they don't build a 3rd runway? I seriously doubt that somehow.

I think "survive" is probably a bit strong, but as far as I'm aware, it's the main European hub for the world's major airlines.

 

If Heathrow stagnates (it's pretty much at full capacity with the two runways it has now, so they can't really expand it without another runway), the argument seems to be that one of the other large airports in Europe (many of which have expanded in recent years) would take over as the European hub, which would then have numerous potential knock-on effects for our economy.

[JohnnyFartPants]

I heard they are trying to build an underground tunnel runway at Gatwick which will actually enable planes to reach 30,000 ft while still underground. This will eventually do away with the need to travel in the air, unless you are in a tunnel in the air which is at ground level, underneath us.

[Scummer]

I heard they are trying to build an underground tunnel runway at Gatwick which will actually enable planes to reach 30,000 ft while still underground. This will eventually do away with the need to travel in the air, unless you are in a tunnel in the air which is at ground level, underneath us.

 

That was on megastructures I think. It looked awesome.

[JohnnyFartPants]

That was on megastructures I think. It looked awesome.

 

Glad someone else saw it. Do you think it will catch on?

[Scummer]

Glad someone else saw it. Do you think it will catch on?

 

Dunno, seems like there are only a few places with the correct ground structure to accommodate it.

 

Those underground lizard things were a bit freaky as well. Not sure I'd want to see one of them out of my plane window.

[JohnnyFartPants]

Dunno, seems like there are only a few places with the correct ground structure to accommodate it.

 

Those underground lizard things were a bit freaky as well. Not sure I'd want to see one of them out of my plane window.

 

When you say lizard thing I assume you mean the Taileronarex, assumed extinct until building started on the Gatwick project? I don't think it is much to worry about as so far all the indications are that they are happy with it.

[Hatch]

Mind if I ask why?

 

21st century progress.

[warsash saint]

Why would that be the right decision?

 

What sort of message will it send out ??

 

On one hand to be told to recycle, use low energy light bulbs, cut down on car jouneys etc etc but then whats the point when the Govt then give permission to allow extra hundreds of thousand for flights a year.

 

Seems very little point in little me making an effort :confused:

[Jillyanne]

I heard they are trying to build an underground tunnel runway at Gatwick which will actually enable planes to reach 30,000 ft while still underground. This will eventually do away with the need to travel in the air, unless you are in a tunnel in the air which is at ground level, underneath us.

 

I cannot quite get my head around this proposal.

[Scummer]

I cannot quite get my head around this proposal.

 

See if you can find the programme on Youtube, might be on the Channel 5 website.

[Colinjb]

It seems to me that expanding Stansted would make more sense. It's a little further away from London city centre but so what, it'll ease the pressure on the airspace around Heathrow already.

 

The problem is, Heathrow is operated as a business first, transportation second, so they will expand ad infinitum as long as it serves BAA's bank manager.

[bungle]

If we spent money on some proper high-speed rail links and reduced the market for totally unncessary domestic flights then Heathrow would have no business case for it's 3rd runway.

[Thedelldays]

If we spent money on some proper high-speed rail links and reduced the market for totally unncessary domestic flights then Heathrow would have no business case for it's 3rd runway.

hmmm

 

 

would that be cost effective at all?

[Saint_clark]

I heard they are trying to build an underground tunnel runway at Gatwick which will actually enable planes to reach 30,000 ft while still underground. This will eventually do away with the need to travel in the air, unless you are in a tunnel in the air which is at ground level, underneath us.

 

 

:neutral:

[stevegrant]

What sort of message will it send out ??

 

On one hand to be told to recycle, use low energy light bulbs, cut down on car jouneys etc etc but then whats the point when the Govt then give permission to allow extra hundreds of thousand for flights a year.

 

Seems very little point in little me making an effort :confused:

Recycling is down to individual choice, IMO. Personally, I don't do it, predominantly on the basis that I a) don't have much time as it is due to a long commute, and b) am pretty lazy. Energy saving lightbulbs and that sort of thing actually save the consumer money, so I don't see why people would just say "well I'm not going to bother with those now they've built a new runway at Heathrow".

 

The whole "global warming" thing is a load of guff, for my money. The earth has evolved over millions of years through different periods of climate change, and right now is no different. In fact, the phrase "global warming", based on the last 3 months (I've played only one Sunday League game in that time due to the weather), is complete crap as it's been noticeably colder, rather than warmer. The climate is affected more by natural evolutionary changes than "greenhouse" gases, and the cumulative output from car and train engines is, from what I can remember reading, far greater than from aircraft.

 

The number of flights available at any given time will be dictated by market forces. If the demand is there, they'll lay on more flights, which in turn will create more jobs and money will be recycled within our economy. Heathrow's two runways are completely full, all day, every day. That is a major disaster waiting to happen. Lightening the load on the corridors of airspace used by the two existing runways is a good thing. There is no guarantee that more and more flights would be squeezed onto the third runway - airlines cannot afford to buy more planes or to only partially fill the flights they provide.

[Saint_clark]

Recycling doesn't take much effort Steve, unless you don't have the green boxes in Hampshire.

[bungle]

Recycling is down to individual choice, IMO. Personally, I don't do it, predominantly on the basis that I a) don't have much time as it is due to a long commute, and b) am pretty lazy. Energy saving lightbulbs and that sort of thing actually save the consumer money, so I don't see why people would just say "well I'm not going to bother with those now they've built a new runway at Heathrow".

 

The whole "global warming" thing is a load of guff, for my money. The earth has evolved over millions of years through different periods of climate change, and right now is no different. In fact, the phrase "global warming", based on the last 3 months (I've played only one Sunday League game in that time due to the weather), is complete crap as it's been noticeably colder, rather than warmer. The climate is affected more by natural evolutionary changes than "greenhouse" gases, and the cumulative output from car and train engines is, from what I can remember reading, far greater than from aircraft.

 

The number of flights available at any given time will be dictated by market forces. If the demand is there, they'll lay on more flights, which in turn will create more jobs and money will be recycled within our economy. Heathrow's two runways are completely full, all day, every day. That is a major disaster waiting to happen. Lightening the load on the corridors of airspace used by the two existing runways is a good thing. There is no guarantee that more and more flights would be squeezed onto the third runway - airlines cannot afford to buy more planes or to only partially fill the flights they provide.

 

Aside from the ridiculous comment that recycling is hard to do, I'd like to point out the "global warming" part of your post. There is no doubt that it is a poor phrase, although technically true. The increase in temperature of the Earth actually results in extreme weather conditions of all kinds: high winds (hurricanes), excessive cold and excessive heat, so don't be fooled be the phraseology.

[Weston Super Saint]

Aside from the ridiculous comment that recycling is hard to do, I'd like to point out the "global warming" part of your post. There is no doubt that it is a poor phrase, although technically true. The increase in temperature of the Earth actually results in extreme weather conditions of all kinds: high winds (hurricanes), excessive cold and excessive heat, so don't be fooled be the phraseology.

 

And yet the actual average / mean temperature of the Earth over the last 100 years shows that it is actually 'cooling' not 'heating'.

 

Everything else you refer to can actually be classed as just plain old simple 'weather'.

 

Quite bizarre

[JohnnyFartPants]

I tend to put any old rubbish in the bottom of the green,brown and grey wheelie bins and then top them up with whatever is supposed to be in them. That way I get a sense of having cheated the system plus I am still doing a bit for the environment. Everyone is happy.

[hamster]

It seems to me that expanding Stansted would make more sense.

 

Manston, in Kent is the most sensible airport in the south east to develop IMO. As for the employment implications, that area (Isle of Thanet), could really do with it, (especially since BenBons was torched Colin).

 

Take a look on google maps:

http://wiki.worldflicks.org/kent_international_airport.html

and you will see that runways could be built with little impact re flight paths around approx 270 degrees. There is lots of land available and he A2/M2 is just a few miles away. Add to that the fast rail link opening later this, year which virtually runs past their front door.

 

They currently take some of the largest, heaviest planes in the world too, mainly freight at the moment but a fantastic opportunity to build a state of the art terminal.

 

The north Kent coast (Margate, Ramsgate and Pegwell Bay) is where this country needs to bring tourists IMHO. If those beaches were good enough for the Romans in 43AD, then they are good enough for Johnny foreigner now.

 

The extra transit passengers at Heathrow, don't add that much to the local economy apart from a few hundred jobs, as those passengers are merely passing through. Hence a bigger profit for another foreign company - BAA. They should be made to change they're name IMO they are NOT the British Airport Authority anymore.

Edited 13 January, 2009 by hamster

[stevegrant]

Aside from the ridiculous comment that recycling is hard to do, I'd like to point out the "global warming" part of your post. There is no doubt that it is a poor phrase, although technically true. The increase in temperature of the Earth actually results in extreme weather conditions of all kinds: high winds (hurricanes), excessive cold and excessive heat, so don't be fooled be the phraseology.

Firstly, I never said recycling was hard to do. I said I don't have time to be messing around sorting things into different bags/boxes. I get up at 6, leave home at 6.40, get home at 7.30pm, dinner for about 8ish. Usually there's washing or some sort of tedious cleaning to do, so once that's done, I'd quite like a bit of time to do something I want to do. I'm also lazy. Ergo, everything goes in one bag and in one bin. Sorry.

 

OK, so the slightly different phrase of "climate change" is more accurate. That doesn't change the fact that aircraft contribute far less to this than motor vehicles and trains, and yet you're suggesting that the government pour money into developing a high-speed rail network (I presume it's not going to be a mag-lev one, given that we don't seem to be able to get anything good like that to work in this country) that would cause years of disruption to an already-stretched system, with the net result being a) more CO2 emissions and b) even higher fares for passengers as "it's got to be financed somehow".

[hamster]

Firstly, I never said recycling was hard to do. I said I don't have time to be messing around sorting things into different bags/boxes. I get up at 6, leave home at 6.40, get home at 7.30pm, dinner for about 8ish. Usually there's washing or some sort of tedious cleaning to do, so once that's done, I'd quite like a bit of time to do something I want to do. I'm also lazy. Ergo, everything goes in one bag and in one bin. Sorry.

 

OK, so the slightly different phrase of "climate change" is more accurate. That doesn't change the fact that aircraft contribute far less to this than motor vehicles and trains, and yet you're suggesting that the government pour money into developing a high-speed rail network (I presume it's not going to be a mag-lev one, given that we don't seem to be able to get anything good like that to work in this country) that would cause years of disruption to an already-stretched system, with the net result being a) more CO2 emissions and b) even higher fares for passengers as "it's got to be financed somehow".

 

Couldn't agree more Steve.

I am quite frankly getting fed up with sorting my rubbish, and as for glass recycling, I have long suspected that lots of it goes into landfill. After all, the UK bottling industry requires a tiny percentage of the green glass that we consume. And Southampton, don't even collect it from your doorstep.

 

I would much prefer the council/government added a few quid to my taxes, and employed people to sort the rubbish at the recycling depots.

[TopGun]

The fact is building a third runway at heathrow is cheaper than any other schemes mentioned above such as Thames Estuary, Manston, more rail links etc. It is inevitable following the construction of T5 that the govt will opt for it.

 

Airspace is not an issue either as new technology air traffic management (ATM) systems will be introduced over the next decade that will mean planes can fly more closely and safely than ever before. They will also be able to fly more direct routes rather the current point to point system. This will mean a massive reduction in holding patterns that cause significant pollution and noise.

 

Emissions are obviously an issue but better ATM, improved aircraft and potential phased introduction of renewable jet fuels over the next few years will help to allay that.

 

The EU aviation emissions trading scheme (ETS) also begins in 2012 which acts a further pollution mitigant as it will charge airlines for excessive emissions and push up the cost of flights making many flights simply uneconomical for airlines and ensuring that seat occupancies are higher than at present on many routes. The ETS will also drive the most polluting older aircraft from the skies.

Edited 13 January, 2009 by TopGun

[Thedelldays]

im sure I have read somewhere that we (the UK) charge other states a fee to use the space created in our landfill sites due to our "recycling"..to basically dump their rubbish..

[bridge too far]

The fact is building a third runway at heathrow is cheaper than any other schemes mentioned above such as Thames Estuary, Manston, more rail links etc. It is inevitable following the construction of T5 that the govt will opt for it.

 

Airspace is not an issue either as new technology air traffic management (ATM) systems will be introduced over the next decade that will mean planes can fly more closely and safely than ever before. This will mean a massive reduction in holding patterns that cause significant pollution and noise.

 

Emissions are obviously an issue but better ATM, improved aircraft and potential phased introduction of renwable jet fuels over the next few years will help to allay that.

 

The EU aviation emissions trading scheme (ETS) also begins in 2012 which acts a further pollution mitigant as it will charge airlines for excessive emissions and push up the cost of flights making many flights simply uneconomical for airlines and ensuring that seat occupancies are higher than at present on many routes.

 

Won't that eventually lead to fewer flights TG? Meaning that the need for a third runway will be obviated?

 

I don't have strong views either way, having for many years lived under a Heathrow flight path BTW.

[stevegrant]

I would much prefer the council/government added a few quid to my taxes, and employed people to sort the rubbish at the recycling depots.

Thus creating much-needed jobs... although of course, I suspect most of the unemployed will see a job such as this as "below" them, so they'd rather sit on their £50 a week or however much JSA pays these days.

 

Emissions are obviously an issue but better ATM, improved aircraft and potential phased introduction of renewable jet fuels over the next few years will help to allay that.

I saw on the news recently that engineers had tested a flight using a 737 powered partially (50%, I think) by biofuel, including a mid-air engine power-down, and it worked perfectly.

[TopGun]

Won't that eventually lead to fewer flights TG? Meaning that the need for a third runway will be obviated?

 

I don't have strong views either way, having for many years lived under a Heathrow flight path BTW.

 

It depends what you read. Airbus and Boeing forecast that they will be building more aircraft than ever in the future but in reality price led demand will dictate the number of aircraft and flights. That's difficult to predict with any accuracy.

 

Obviously vested interests such as BAA want the third runway as they don't want to lose transit flights between the US and far east and Asia to airports like Dubai.

Edited 13 January, 2009 by TopGun

[TopGun]

 

I saw on the news recently that engineers had tested a flight using a 737 powered partially (50%, I think) by biofuel, including a mid-air engine power-down, and it worked perfectly.

 

This is true. Both jatropha and algae are effectively being proven as "drop-in" fuels but it requires a sustained high oil price for further R&D and commercial production viability.

 

Also, to currently replace all the kerosene used globally each year by commercial aviation, you would need a land mass the size of SA to grow required jatropha and one the size of Belgium for algae tanks. Not to say that there is not enough marginal land that could be used for such purposes in coastal deserts etc but it will be mightily expensive to set up as well as taking years.

 

Air New Zealand is one airline that intends to have 10% renewable fuels by 2010, which may be a tad ambitious.

Edited 13 January, 2009 by TopGun

[Minty]

The 3rd runway at Heathrow is symbolic of a much bigger issue IMO.

 

The developed world seemingly wants to 'expand' this and 'grow' that all the time, and most of it is completely unsustainable. Just how much more growth can this country, and the planet, sustain? All this talk about growing the economy and creating jobs etc... fine in theory, but it's all going to prove somewhat pointless when the earth is so overcrowded and drained of it's resources that countries implode under civil/global war for food scraps, and the human race ultimately obliterates itself.

 

Far fetched? It only seems that way because it's probably, relatively speaking, many many lifetimes away. But it will still happen, and given our greater understanding of the planet and it's capability to sustain our race, I think we should be doing more to consider it already.

 

"Long-term plans" for anything, in this country and the world over, barely stretch to 2050... worry about our economy shrinking further in the next decade or two, or other countries growing their GDP etc and leaving us behind. It's all so short sighted, and indicative of the small-minded thinking that prevails.

 

My grandkids will probably see the year 2100... how will the world be then? And what about their grandkids, and theirs, and theirs...? Granted, our ancestors probably never thought about the world we would live in, but they didn't have the same understanding and knowledge that we do now. At what point will we actually start thinking globally rather than nationally, for the sake of everyone, rather than just our own country?

 

When you sit back and watch, the selfishness of humans is really quite spectacular IMO, and, with this entirely unsustainable growth and all the worldly political and religious bo!!ocks causing more and more tension in the world, I can see us all killing each other or wiping ourselves out far sooner than many think.

 

Apologies for bringing down the tone, but it's something I give a sh!t about. Without fundamental changes by world leaders and the population as a whole, my future family is f*cked IMO. But I honestly doubt anything will change because it would requires too great a shift in thinking by too many selfish and stubborn people across the whole world, not to mention global co-operation between countries who would be happier trying to kill each other etc, etc. And so, the status quo would remain and we continue towards an inevitable end.

 

Meanwhile the planet will happily live on and evolve. After all, what's one more extinct race to a planet that has had so many over the years?

[JohnnyFartPants]

The 3rd runway at Heathrow is symbolic of a much bigger issue IMO.

 

The developed world seemingly wants to 'expand' this and 'grow' that all the time, and most of it is completely unsustainable. Just how much more growth can this country, and the planet, sustain? All this talk about growing the economy and creating jobs etc... fine in theory, but it's all going to prove somewhat pointless when the earth is so overcrowded and drained of it's resources that countries implode under civil/global war for food scraps, and the human race ultimately obliterates itself.

 

Far fetched? It only seems that way because it's probably, relatively speaking, many many lifetimes away. But it will still happen, and given our greater understanding of the planet and it's capability to sustain our race, I think we should be doing more to consider it already.

 

"Long-term plans" for anything, in this country and the world over, barely stretch to 2050... worry about our economy shrinking further in the next decade or two, or other countries growing their GDP etc and leaving us behind. It's all so short sighted, and indicative of the small-minded thinking that prevails.

 

My grandkids will probably see the year 2100... how will the world be then? And what about their grandkids, and theirs, and theirs...? Granted, our ancestors probably never thought about the world we would live in, but they didn't have the same understanding and knowledge that we do now. At what point will we actually start thinking globally rather than nationally, for the sake of everyone, rather than just our own country?

 

When you sit back and watch, the selfishness of humans is really quite spectacular IMO, and, with this entirely unsustainable growth and all the worldly political and religious bo!!ocks causing more and more tension in the world, I can see us all killing each other or wiping ourselves out far sooner than many think.

 

Apologies for bringing down the tone, but it's something I give a sh!t about. Without fundamental changes by world leaders and the population as a whole, my future family is f*cked IMO. But I honestly doubt anything will change because it would requires too great a shift in thinking by too many selfish and stubborn people across the whole world, not to mention global co-operation between countries who would be happier trying to kill each other etc, etc. And so, the status quo would remain and we continue towards an inevitable end.

 

Meanwhile the planet will happily live on and evolve. After all, what's one more extinct race to a planet that has had so many over the years?

 

Big is best - stop being gay.

[Minty]

Big is best - stop being gay.

 

Lol. I can't really follow that, so I won't try.

[bridge too far]

I'm undecided about the pros and cons of this issue but I was interested to read this article in the Guardian today:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/14/aviation-jobs-heathrow-baa

 

Quite a long article, but well worth a read - if you're open-minded.

[Hatch]

I'm undecided about the pros and cons of this issue but I was interested to read this article in the Guardian today:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/14/aviation-jobs-heathrow-baa

 

Quite a long article, but well worth a read - if you're open-minded.

 

I am able to predict what it will say, without clicking the link, what with it being The Guardian and all.

[bridge too far]

I am able to predict what it will say, without clicking the link, what with it being The Guardian and all.

 

Actually I don't think you are, TBH. I was quite surprised at some of the information in there.

 

You're right to suspect that it is probably anti-3rd runway, but you still might learn something about the economics of the issue. I did.

 

But then I'm open-minded and prepared to consider ALL the facts, not just the ones that suit my agenda, especially as I don't yet have one on this topic.

 

[Ponty]

Actually I don't think you are, TBH. I was quite surprised at some of the information in there.

 

You're right to suspect that it is probably anti-3rd runway, but you still might learn something about the economics of the issue. I did.

 

But then I'm open-minded and prepared to consider ALL the facts, not just the ones that suit my agenda, especially as I don't yet have one on this topic.

 

 

Surely only the operators at Heathrow, maybe a few airlines and possibly the local hoteliers WOULD have an agenda on this. Why does everyone with differing opinions around here get accused of having an agenda?