advertisement


Heathrow 3rd runway

bob atherton

bob atherton

pfm Member
I have been aware, though only in my periphery, that there has been a proposed third runway at Heathrow for a very long time.

This morning I saw the proposed scale of this runway overlaid over the existing Heathrow site. I was seriously shocked at the scale of it. It will cover part of the M25, demolish over 700 homes and mean diverting rivers. My knee jerk reaction was, do we need this new runway so badly to destroy so much environment? As I understand things there will be a twelve-week discussion period about the runway.

I’m a country boy living near Bristol and to be honest the new runway will have precious little impact on my life, but I do feel strongly enough to look carefully at the proposals and, if it still makes no sense, to do what I can to prevent the build.

I thought that the two things we all should be addressing to reduce our carbon footprints were to be eating less meat and flying less often, this would go a long way to achieving the governments zero emission targets. So why in the name of God do we need this third runway?
 
I can’t recall the costings but I suspect they are a similar level to HS2, and perhaps HS3. My view is that they’d be better off linking LHR to the regions by high speed rail, so reducing the need for domestic shuttle services, thus freeing at least some capacity for other flights.

I do wonder whether long term air traffic forecasts are taking into account any changes to travel patterns due to climate change awareness and mitigation. It wouldn’t surprise me if the forecasts of continued air travel growth were to overshoot somewhat.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
My view is that they’d be better off linking LHR to the regions by high speed rail
Click to expand...
now that would be a good idea

Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
so reducing the need for domestic shuttle services, thus freeing at least some capacity for other flights
Click to expand...
I dont have the numbers, but my hunch, is that this would yield a micro amount of capacity. The argument appears that major hubs in the UK no longer have the capacity to compete with those nearby in Europe.
 
If we must have another runway at one of our major airports, Gatwick seems the obvious choice especially as it only has one runway at present. I do hope that the ongoing recession, which seems to be developing nicely, will scotch this idea tout suite.
 
It’s all very well expanding Gatwick, or even Stansted, but if the airlines don’t want that, then you’ve only made everything worse.

Nearly 20 years ago, Stansted was earmarked for THREE extra runways. To me that seemed like an initial proposal that would be bargained down to one extra, but in the end no extra runways were built.

The one thing the uk will do well is provide crap links between airports.
 
I suspect this is the price of the Chinese discovering tourism. We have to fight for every tourist dollar, as we will have b&gger all else to make money from. The thought of the roadworks on the M25 for the next 5 years will force me into early retirement though
 
wonder if Flight shame will make any effect on the runway plans ?

Travellers are beginning to turn their backs on air travel over concern for the environment, according to a survey by Swiss bank UBS.

The Swedish concept of "flygskam" or "flight shame" appears to be spreading.

One in five of the people surveyed had cut the number of flights they took over the last year because of the impact on the climate.

UBS said the expected growth in passenger numbers could be halved if these trends were borne out.

Global air travel has grown by between 4% and 5% a year, UBS said, meaning the overall numbers are doubling every 15 years.

Industry forecasts from plane makers Airbus and Boeing predict growth will continue at that rate until 2035.

But the UBS survey suggests that high-profile campaigns - like the example set by Swedish school girl Greta Thunberg, which has helped push the climate crisis up the political agenda - could trigger a change in flying habits in wealthier parts of the world, particularly in the US and Europe.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49890057
 
According to the BBC link...

“After surveying more than 6,000 people in the US, Germany, France and the UK, UBS found that 21% had reduced the number of flights they took over the last year.

Only 16% of British respondents said they were cutting back on flying, but 24% of US travellers were worried enough to change their flying habits.”

So ignoring what socio economic group were being surveyed and whether or not it reflected a mix of population let’s assume the 6000 were spread equally among the four nations.
So that’s 1,500 Brits.
Of whom 16% were cutting back on flying.
That’s 250 people.

Big deal!
 
It remains to be seen if people really change their habits. It is one thing answering a poll and quite another actually changing your habits. I spend a lot of time on planes and it is extraordinary how many there are and how full they are. I fly to Boston a fair bit and there are 7 flights a DAY from LHR alone and they are all pretty full including one A380 double-decker, that's somewhere around 2500 people - every day!

People want to travel for holiday, visiting relatives and work. It is so cheap now that we can do it multiple times a year or month if we want to even on quite modest incomes. This is why old airports such as LHR are straining at the seams with a take off or landing every 45 seconds - just think about that.

LHR is the most efficient airport in the world, operating at nearly 99% efficiency and has more passengers than any other 2 runway airport in the world at 72M and more than CDG (4 runways) Frankfurt (4 runways) and Amsterdam (6 runways) to mention a few. Gatwick is similarly efficient with only one runway, only beaten by Mumbai for passengers on a single runway.

The problem of 99% efficiency is that it is massively affected by delays or bad weather which is why the 3rd runway is wanted. Whether the UK invests in one or not will make no difference to the global flying numbers but will affect LHR ability to continue employing over 76,000 people.

Oh and I do live nearby although not next to it.
 
Isn't the third runway and infrastructure being built to allow for all of the charging points and capacity for the new electric aircraft?
 
Our aeroplane-mad younger daughter (who now flies seriously large aeroplanes for a living) did her Matura (Swiss university entrance exam) project on "Heathrow; past present and future". We spent a week over there while she researched and interviewed. She showed conclusively that Heathrow was an airfield built towards the end of the war in the wrong place at the wrong time, for the RAF, which didn't actually want it and had never asked for it. It involved the destruction of Heathrow village, the locals only getting compensated 10 years later at the price of 1950s agricultural land. The third runway and the Terminal 6 that will accompany it, at least as then envisaged, would involve the destruction of the villages north of the present airport, an old church and the oldest tithe barn in England. It really didn't sound like a very good idea.
 
In best UK tradition, they will dig up the M25 first and then abandon it after the consultants get paid billions
 
One would have thought that seeing how precious London and its mayor is about pollution that they would be actively discouraging such a venture.... perhaps however their desire for cleaner air is motivated by something else ;)

It's a bad idea on so many levels and the usual London focused vanity project of the ruling classes!
 
And why would an aspirant third world country need all that capacity anyway? Come November, nobody will need or want to come here, and nobody from here will be able to afford to go anywhere else. If it achieves nothing else, at least Brexit may cut this particular Gordian Knot.
 
If the UK wants to be considered a world class business base, it needs a world class airport fairly near the bit where most of the business is done, ie London.
Passengers/customers need to be able to connect onto other flights to worldwide destinations. For that reason, Gatwick, Luton & Stansted are never going to be in the running unless the while slot/flight structure is changed & Gatwick would have to be expanded from its current 2 terminals to about 6 which is just not going to happen.
Yes, LHR is in a bad position geographically & the ground transport links supporting it aren't good enough.
The Boris Island airport idea would make HS2 look ultra-cheap.
So sadly, expanding LHR is the least worst idea & the least financially ruinous one, IF the UK still wants to be seen as a world class business hub.
A look at some of the newer airports around the world is enough to realise just how poor LHR is.
The anti-air travel movement may affect tourism air travel, but I don't think it will affect business travel as much. Likewise, improved tech communications may negate some business trips, but not all of them.
I think we are stuck with air travel & the need to expand LHR for quite some time, even though environmentally it might be viewed as disastrous by a great many people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top