Third runway at London-Heathrow?

[Steady rider]

The MPs for the north do not seem to pull together to get a fair deal. Cheap holidays from London airports are advertised, cost more if you have to add another 200 miles each way. Will the proposed expansion now be discussed in the Lords?

[reohn2]

At least Boris was in there, representing his constituents on something they feel very strongly about, honouring his election campaign promises, etc. Reliable and as predictable as ever, Buffoon.

Ian

Don't you mean weasel?

[Cyril Haearn]

In bald economic terms the cluster of London airports are obviously not 'big enough already' otherwise there would be no need for expansion. Rightly or wrongly the UK is 'London-centric' and that's where people want to fly to. Apart from its hub status Heathrow is good for tourists who want to see London, Oxford, the Cotswolds etc. They may also travel to the Yorkshire Dales or Edinburgh but they do that by transiting through London first.

Most people I know take holidays where they have to fly twice a year (that includes a fair few cyclists who fly to Majorca and other such destinations). Anybody who takes advantage of the relative ease and low cost of doing that is not in a position to throw stones.

I flew several times from my local airport courtesy of ryanair. The terminal was about as big and busy as Hereford train station
My airport has a train station, but it was recently downgraded to a request stop

[softlips]

We do need more airport space around London. Personally, I love Heathrow and hate Gatwick, I’m amazed there isn’t a LHR-LGW Express, the Heathrow Express is the best train in the UK in my experience.

[thirdcrank]

We seem to have had several Heathrow threads, even though it's a fairly easy search term. I only make that point in case anybody has already posted on one of them that the estimated costs are being reduced by the large number of bulldozer drivers who have volunteered to work unpaid.

[reohn2]

We seem to have had several Heathrow threads, even though it's a fairly easy search term. I only make that point in case anybody has already posted on one of them that the estimated costs are being reduced by the large number of bulldozer drivers who have volunteered to work unpaid.

If only I had a bulldozer licence.....

[PDQ Mobile]

It's a heck of a price tag though for a strip of tarmac/concrete?
Land and real estate costs are high no doubt.

Lobbyists work well on Mr Grayling I think.
He cancels electrification of railway in S Wales, something sustainable for the future and gives this the go ahead.

Sometimes I would like to wake up and this Govt. Is just all a bad dream.

[Ben@Forest]

Sometimes I would like to wake up and this Govt. Is just all a bad dream.

Yes it was much better in 2003 when that nice Tony Blair supported a third runway at Heathrow and then put his government's energies into delivering it. Oh... perhaps not....

[mjr]

Sometimes I would like to wake up and this Govt. Is just all a bad dream.

Yes it was much better in 2003 when that nice Tony Blair supported a third runway at Heathrow and then put his government's energies into delivering it. Oh... perhaps not....

You know things stink when a reasonable defence of May is to point out that she's not Blair! What next? Oh well at least she's not Ceaucescu(?)

[irc]

I'm all for the 3rd runway. Living in Scotland I prefer to fly direct but the reality is that most places in the world don't have direct routes from Scotland. So I need to fly via a hub.

At the moment Glasgow - London flights are limited by Heathrow over-capacity. Low number of flights and higher cost. So much that on one holiday I had to fly Glasgow - Gatwick -bus transfer- Heathrow - North America. Flying Glasgow - Heathrow that day would have added around £200.

[Ben@Forest]

Sometimes I would like to wake up and this Govt. Is just all a bad dream.

Yes it was much better in 2003 when that nice Tony Blair supported a third runway at Heathrow and then put his government's energies into delivering it. Oh... perhaps not....

You know things stink when a reasonable defence of May is to point out that she's not Blair! What next? Oh well at least she's not Ceaucescu(?)

It's not really the point whether it's May or not, the point is that successive governments have not made a decision on this, and Labour have swung from wanting it (Blair and Brown) to being lukewarm (Miliband) to being against (Corbyn) but allowing a free vote on the issue and half their MPs voting for.

I think it would be great if we could spread the load of UK-outbound and inbound passengers more equably around the country but incentives have been tried and failed - look at Prestwick, and local to here look at Durham-Tees. The last time I was there they flew three scheduled services a day and two of those were domestic flights. I think evidence proves that the policy of hub airports is also greener than lots of direct flights between smaller airports (I have read that but am not going to go evidence hunting).

It's a fact that people want to fly to London and freight is fairly well distributed from Heathrow - close to 8 million people in London, on the M25, close to the M1, M3 and M4 junctions. I am indifferent to it really - but pretending Heathrow is not a national asset is sticking one's head in the sand.

[mjr]

So much that on one holiday I had to fly Glasgow - Gatwick -bus transfer- Heathrow - North America. Flying Glasgow - Heathrow that day would have added around £200.

That sounds more like an argument for strengthening links between Heathrow and the other London airports than a third runway. Crossrail could have done more if they'd put a station in the Connaught Tunnel (for London City) and taken over GA's Stansted Express services rather than the Shenfield ones, but it'll still connect with Gatwick-Luton services at Farringdon.

It's a fact that people want to fly to London and [...]

Is it? It seems like more people want to fly to places that only London has suitable UK flights to, rather than particularly wanting to fly to London.

I am indifferent to it really - but pretending Heathrow is not a national asset is sticking one's head in the sand.

Saying that expanding Heathrow doesn't seem like the best option for the whole nation, especially outside the blessed London, is not pretending Heathrow is not a national asset - it's refusing to answer the objections to the third runway and trickery like packing a famous objector off to Afghanistan that is sticking one's head in the sand.

[Ben@Forest]

So much that on one holiday I had to fly Glasgow - Gatwick -bus transfer- Heathrow - North America. Flying Glasgow - Heathrow that day would have added around £200.

That sounds more like an argument for strengthening links between Heathrow and the other London airports than a third runway.

To be fair links between Gatwick and Heathrow are pretty good, the coach service is every half hour. And there is definitely a similar service to Stansted - don't know about Luton. For that passenger paying £200 more for the convenience of flying direct to Heathrow was too much - but of course some people paid it.

If there had been a direct flight from Glasgow to the North American destination that passenger may have seen £200 extra or more as worth paying - but because it makes more economic sense to run hub airports than more direct flights people can't expect smaller airports to offer the same range of direct destinations. I think that's definitely a First World problem.

[Pete Owens]

The Heathrow decision is wrong at so many levels that it beggars belief.

First, and most important, is climate change. In order for the planet to habitable for our grandchildren we need to cut our carbon emissions to a small fraction of their current level. For most of our energy uses there are viable sustainable alternatives but, for aviation there simply isn't an alternative - getting people off the ground is an energy intensive business and there is no prospect of an alternative energy source to burning kerosene. By the time a third runway is constructed we will need to be drastically cutting the amount of air travel. So the argument shouldn’t be about where to build extra capacity for flights to London – it should be about which airport to close (and the obvious answer would be Heathrow).

This is really as far as the argument needs to be taken – and it is astonishing that even contributors to a cycle forum, who you would imagine had some basic concern for the environment, are debating about where it should be built as opposed to whether it should be built at all.
OK so let’s for the sake of argument imagine that a magical power emission-free silent source is invented so we can fly as often as we like without frying the planet and choking Hounslow and look at what passes for the “economic” arguments.

At the national level it is claimed that a hub airport will generate lots of jobs (just like every road widening scheme). But it doesn’t matter where you put a hub airport; if it is to serve the whole country them most people will have to fly to the hub from their local spur. In terms of regional policy it would make sense to direct such a development to a depressed region in the north which would welcome the local jobs, rather than the most overheated economy with a flight path over the most populated part of the country. From this perspective it is hard to think of a worse place than Heathrow. So IF a national decision was made to build a hub airport then building one from scratch somewhere north of Doncaster with an approach over the Humber.

In terms of serving passengers Heathrow already works really poorly as a hub. Because it has grown in an ad-hoc manner from a small airfield the connections between terminals are very poor – the only rationale for keeping it as a hub are the vested interests of the owners and those carriers that are based there.

So if it makes no sense at a national level, what about a regional airport serving Greater London? First there is no shortage of capacity; there are other airports in the region. And if you did want to increase capacity the last place you would want to put it would be close to the centre with a flight path directly over the city centre.

[tatanab]

it is astonishing that even contributors to a cycle forum, who you would imagine had some basic concern for the environment,

That is a mistake that some non cyclists make, assuming that just because i choose to use a pedal cycle I must have green credentials.