Heathrow 3rd runway - Progress

uta999 · Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:34 am

The Heathrow 3rd runway is expected to become UK government policy this morning, after a cabinet meeting. The Commons will then vote on it within three weeks. Boris has been sent on a field trip that day, so he won't have to vote.

This means the new runway is expected to have outline planning permission before the end of the month.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44357580

LAX772LR · Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:04 am

So let's see how they manage to screw this up..... should be interesting.

DobboDobbo · Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:25 am

This is the political part of the process - which is expected to pass but that is not certain. The current transport secretary is unpopular, and has a number of major problems (mostly rail related) that may create a political backlash. This is a risky political move for a fragmented government and a vulnerable minister.

The legal part of the process then follows, where there are a variety of reasons to believe the expansion scheme will be barred from construction.

There are also financial and deliverability issues to overcome - the project is so expensive and requires significant support (e.g. Rebuilding the M25) in order to be deliverable. As things stand, there is no agreement on how to progress these, specifically who will pay for it.

Assuming these get through, it will likely be 15-20 years before the new runway / terminals are open.

wawaman · Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:31 am

It will pass the political hurdle no problem. The unions are all for it, and that means labour support. And after the consultation LHR is the only real show in town now. The real hurdle is legal which will come next year.

DobboDobbo · Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:34 am

I agree it will almost certainly pass the political hurdle, but labour support is not a given (nb - lack of labour support is not the same as labour opposing) and it will be interesting to see who breaks ranks.

readytotaxi · Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:38 am

And the legal minefield is where it will drag on and on, probably even be a change in government before it is finalised.

axiom · Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:39 am

Quite a bit of dissent within the Conservatives. Even if this is whipped, I expect to see some fragmentation. I don't think political support is a given, but perhaps I am naive about this.

That said, almost all options here are terrible. Equally, can't see a strong justification for LHR3 when you look at infrastructure problems UK-wide. The very rail issues that are haunting this vote are a perfect example.

There's plenty of capacity that can be bought for cheaper at other UK airports. When you do a cost-benefit analysis that factors in some of the broader political and economic tensions in the UK, this feels like a relatively poor return on investment.

Egerton · Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:56 am

LAX772LR wrote:
So let's see how they manage to screw this up..... should be interesting.

The politics must be difficult for you, but the UK is a representative parliamentary democracy. It took us some centuries to get here. Our first Parliament was in 1265. We finally introduced voting for women in 1916, but they had to be over 30. It was in 1928 that our Representation of the People Act entitled everyone over the age of 21 to vote.

Our democracy may be a bad system, but in the view of many Brits, all others have proved worse. At the moment, our jury is out on Scottish, Welsh and Irish devolution.

Perhaps you may care to look up when the US Voting Rights Act was passed into legislation? It was aimed to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote as guaranteed under the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

LupineChemist · Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:29 am

axiom wrote:
Quite a bit of dissent within the Conservatives. Even if this is whipped, I expect to see some fragmentation. I don't think political support is a given, but perhaps I am naive about this.

That said, almost all options here are terrible. Equally, can't see a strong justification for LHR3 when you look at infrastructure problems UK-wide. The very rail issues that are haunting this vote are a perfect example.

There's plenty of capacity that can be bought for cheaper at other UK airports. When you do a cost-benefit analysis that factors in some of the broader political and economic tensions in the UK, this feels like a relatively poor return on investment.

IAG's purchasing of EI feels better every day.

I wouldn't be shocked if they are going to be after a similar approach as AA regarding JFK/PHL.

Basically just concentrate O/D traffic to LHR and send connections through DUB.

Realistically LHR easily has the capacity right now if only London O/D is considered. So even if the whole endeavor fails, IAG just move more connections over to DUB as demand grows and they can keep getting more and more yield out of LHR. I could also see STN going through a complete redevelopment to try and get extra capacity to make it into another Gatwick.

Given the realities on the ground, I think people need to just accept that LHR isn't going to be the global leader as a connecting hub that it once was. Especially when you have AMS, FRA, and MAD that can serve those markets with a much more comfortable experience without the whole thing going pear shaped once a week.

skipness1E · Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:22 am

DobboDobbo wrote:
Assuming these get through, it will likely be 15-20 years before the new runway / terminals are open.

Where did you get that number from?

DobboDobbo · Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:27 am

skipness1E wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:
Assuming these get through, it will likely be 15-20 years before the new runway / terminals are open.

Where did you get that number from?

It's the reality of obtaining approvals for and then building a large and complicated piece of infrastructure in the UK.

skipness1E · Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:27 am

@LupineChemist

Just compare the volume of pax connecting with EI at DUB vs BA at LHR.
Then do it again.
Then delete your post.

Context
EI@DUB 13 x A330 2 x 757 = 15 long haul aircraft
BA@LHR 120 long haul aircraft

Given a fair % of short haul just exists to feed long haul and many long haul routes don't work without feed, the sheer difference in scale between LHR and an already full DUB is staggering.

Geoff1947 · Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:29 am

skipness1E wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:
Assuming these get through, it will likely be 15-20 years before the new runway / terminals are open.

Where did you get that number from?

The airport owners say 7-12 years but it is likely to slip.

Geoff

skipness1E · Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:29 am

DobboDobbo wrote:
skipness1E wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:
Assuming these get through, it will likely be 15-20 years before the new runway / terminals are open.

Where did you get that number from?

It's the reality of obtaining approvals for and then building a large and complicated piece of infrastructure in the UK.

That's the vote, the barriers you are alluding to were the Judical ones, many of which Osbourne intentionally removed in the last Parliamant. If this gets through Parliament, there is no real barrier to a mid 2020s build IMHO.

skipness1E · Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:29 am

skipness1E wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:
skipness1E wrote:
Where did you get that number from?

It's the reality of obtaining approvals for and then building a large and complicated piece of infrastructure in the UK.

That's what the vote in Parliement will decide, the barriers you are alluding to were the Judical ones, many of which Osbourne intentionally removed in the last Parliamant. If this gets through Parliament, there is no real barrier to a mid 2020s build IMHO.

OA940 · Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:34 am

I think they should just send all the traffic to LCY. Lots of expansion room for EK there.

DobboDobbo · Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:37 am

skipness1E wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:
skipness1E wrote:
Where did you get that number from?

It's the reality of obtaining approvals for and then building a large and complicated piece of infrastructure in the UK.

That's the vote, the barriers you are alluding to were the Judical ones, many of which Osbourne intentionally removed in the last Parliamant. If this gets through Parliament, there is no real barrier to a mid 2020s build IMHO.

If you mean start in the mid-2020's I agree.

The judicial barriers are real, there is obviously no way parliament can legislate to give its self carte Blanche on such things as environmental and competitive factors. This is different to HS2 in that the promoter is theoretically a private enterprise whereas for HS2 the promoter is the government.

It is (IMO) more likely than not that the current scheme will fall foul of one or more of these barriers, and is likely to get delayed and perhaps revised. In reality who knows what the future holds.

uta999 · Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:43 am

OA940 wrote:
I think they should just send all the traffic to LCY. Lots of expansion room for EK there.

London City could be the victim of all this, as part of the planning application. With CrossRail & CR2 it simply won't be needed.

axiom · Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:47 am

skipness1E wrote:
@LupineChemist

Just compare the volume of pax connecting with EI at DUB vs BA at LHR.
Then do it again.
Then delete your post.

Context
EI@DUB 13 x A330 2 x 757 = 15 long haul aircraft
BA@LHR 120 long haul aircraft

Given a fair % of short haul just exists to feed long haul and many long haul routes don't work without feed, the sheer difference in scale between LHR and an already full DUB is staggering.

I think LupineChemist makes a perfectly reasonable point about where future connecting capacity may come from. Nobody is saying DUB is LHR. What is being said is that "owning" a hub at DUB, where there are more favorable growth conditions, provides a way to grow connecting capacity in ways which enable the LHR/LGW combo to focus on O&D. Their point is spot on.

Arion640 · Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:49 am

uta999 wrote:
OA940 wrote:
I think they should just send all the traffic to LCY. Lots of expansion room for EK there.

London City could be the victim of all this, as part of the planning application. With CrossRail & CR2 it simply won't be needed.

I don't think that would be a bad thing. The land will be welcome for housing and development.

axiom · Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:50 am

DobboDobbo wrote:
skipness1E wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:

It's the reality of obtaining approvals for and then building a large and complicated piece of infrastructure in the UK.

That's the vote, the barriers you are alluding to were the Judical ones, many of which Osbourne intentionally removed in the last Parliamant. If this gets through Parliament, there is no real barrier to a mid 2020s build IMHO.

If you mean start in the mid-2020's I agree.

The judicial barriers are real, there is obviously no way parliament can legislate to give its self carte Blanche on such things as environmental and competitive factors. This is different to HS2 in that the promoter is theoretically a private enterprise whereas for HS2 the promoter is the government.

It is (IMO) more likely than not that the current scheme will fall foul of one or more of these barriers, and is likely to get delayed and perhaps revised. In reality who knows what the future holds.

I agree. The existing fragility of the situation is a harbinger of conflict to come during the environmental review process. There will be significant litigation that add years to the process, on top of the planning, design, and construction. It is inevitable.

Arion640 · Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:52 am

OA940 wrote:
I think they should just send all the traffic to LCY. Lots of expansion room for EK there.

I think they should launch a 3 daily A380 service to Southend or Oxford.

wawaman · Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:07 am

The challenge with the LHR proposal all along was that it was undeliverable. And I mean this on many grounds. Political/Legal/Environmental... and I would even extend this to possible protests. (This will be a huge construction project and just protecting the sight will require a small army). This is far from a done deal. But the real issue is a lack of joined up strategy transport-wise. This will be very expensive and very chaotic....

rutankrd · Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:08 am

Some luv’ly gerimandering in these moves by the Maybot and Grayling imho.

Bring to parliament to second most contentious issue days before summer recess. Force a three line whip on the issue and wait it out till the autumn.

After which the Maybot may have been confined to history by her own colleagues !

Such a major infrastructure development whether you are for or against shouldn’t have the Tory’s bringing parliament into such disrepute imho.

It could certainly wait out a few more months imho

Seems it’s Grayling once again shifting and hiding and perhaps burying his responsibilities for the rail industry crisis !

uta999 · Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:08 am

All the daft people and pressure groups quoting "Climate change and the environment", as a reason not to expand Heathrow, need to stop having children, driving cars, eating food and breathing! It is one big lie to blame aviation for all the noise and pollution in a major city of 10 million, in a country of 70 million, with 32+ million vehicles on the road.

Having 680 aircraft flying overhead everyday is not killing children, or the bees. Take the plank out of your own eye...

It is just Nimbyism, plain and simple.

Kashmon · Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:36 am

LHR 3rd runway should be studied by Historians in the 22nd century as an prime EXAMPLE of the reason the WEST declined in the 21st century....

readytotaxi · Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:05 pm

BBC news states the government have now approved the 3rd runway.

jomur · Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:16 pm

The UK parliament can just pass a new act for rhe new runway which means just about all the previous legal routes to try and stop the runway will be closed.

wawaman · Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:28 pm

jomur wrote:
The UK parliament can just pass a new act for rhe new runway which means just about all the previous legal routes to try and stop the runway will be closed.

I don't think it is quite that simple, although I suspect there will be an act of parliament. This will aid the planning process, but at the end of the day this is a private sector development with likely government guarantees. But someone will need to pay for it. That's where this gets real interesting. There is plenty of scope for legal challenges beyond planning. Should we open a book on what the final cost will be?

uta999 · Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:31 pm

Carillion have offered to build it for £1B

jamesontheroad · Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:32 pm

Some discussion on BBC Radio 4 this lunchtime. A few minutes ago, a representative of Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Council (Conservative 48 seats, Liberal Democrats 1 seat, Independents 8 seats) indicated that they and "at least four other neighbouring councils" and Greenpeace will mount a legal challenge against the proposal.

uta999 · Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:35 pm

jamesontheroad wrote:
Some discussion on BBC Radio 4 this lunchtime. A few minutes ago, a representative of Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Council (Conservative 48 seats, Liberal Democrats 1 seat, Independents 8 seats) indicated that they and "at least four other neighbouring councils" and Greenpeace will mount a legal challenge against the proposal.

Because taking up the hold, delay 20 minutes is far far greener to some pointless jobsworth.

azz767 · Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:41 pm

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/h ... spartanntp

Posted in a new thread didn't see this one was already up and running

ZaphodHarkonnen · Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:44 pm

*shrugs*

Another step on a very long path. Come this time next year the UK economy could look very different.

Anyways, next step will be more back and forth. Then final plans. Then planning approval. More back and forth. Lawsuits. Protests. etc. A very long way to go yet.

LupineChemist · Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:10 pm

skipness1E wrote:
@LupineChemist

Just compare the volume of pax connecting with EI at DUB vs BA at LHR.
Then do it again.
Then delete your post.

Context
EI@DUB 13 x A330 2 x 757 = 15 long haul aircraft
BA@LHR 120 long haul aircraft

Given a fair % of short haul just exists to feed long haul and many long haul routes don't work without feed, the sheer difference in scale between LHR and an already full DUB is staggering.

Of course, but I'm saying there's not really that much of a capacity problem as much as people like to say because a huge portion of the capacity is BA connecting traffic. Just as a personally anecdote, I've been through LHR around 8 times this year, but only actually went to London twice. I live in Madrid so a direct from MAD would be far preferable, but connecting at DUB would even be preferable given US preclearance. That said, given the hubs, it's no shock that there are multiple widebodies per day between MAD and LHR on top of the near constant 320/321 service.

Well, since IAG can just shift that to MAD and DUB (and OSL?HEL? let's see who else they buy up ) that capacity can just move out of LHR while it attracts more O/D passengers that are higher yielding anyway.

As far as the London Area, there's plenty of capacity for growth that aren't nearly as problematic. Gatwick is pretty much at maximum possible capacity but Stanstead could easily end up with a huge amount of growth and it already has a train line, so a terminal redevelopment would be all that's needed.

I mean, personally, if there were a ferry crossing at Southend, SEN would easily be the most convenient airport for what I usually need.

uta999 · Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:22 pm

It's interesting that Heathrow has been on easterly operations for two of the last three months. 65% easterly, 35% westerly. Normally it's the other way round.

wawaman · Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:26 pm

LupineChemist wrote:
skipness1E wrote:
@LupineChemist

As far as the London Area, there's plenty of capacity for growth that aren't nearly as problematic. Gatwick is pretty much at maximum possible capacity but Stanstead could easily end up with a huge amount of growth and it already has a train line, so a terminal redevelopment would be all that's needed.

This is undoubtedly true, but the real significance of these latest moves by the UK parliament is that the Stansted and Gatwick proposals are now history.... It has become a one horse race. And if the LHR proposal fails then it will be a lost decade. There is now not a fall back proposal. It could be argued that this may now accelerate things, but as others have stated. There is a long way to go.

Arion640 · Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:29 pm

Welcome to the new 27R/09L.

Is this going to be a mixed mode runway mainly serving terminal 5? Does this approval include terminal 6?

Jshank83 · Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:36 pm

I am really late to the 3rd runway convo. Where are they wanting to put it? I looked on a map and couldn't figure out the best place.

ZaphodHarkonnen · Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:37 pm

Jshank83 wrote:
I am really late to the 3rd runway convo. Where are they wanting to put it? I looked on a map and couldn't figure out the best place.

Northwest of the current runwys. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44357580 There's a plan a bit down the page.

Basically you would end up razing two villages and having to tunnel the M25 ring motorway. Not a small or peaceful thing to do. People tend to get very attached to their homes and land.

readytotaxi · Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:13 pm

The only real winners out of this will be the law firms, :dollarsign:

this is going to drag on for ages.

flyingclrs727 · Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:21 pm

uta999 wrote:
OA940 wrote:
I think they should just send all the traffic to LCY. Lots of expansion room for EK there.

London City could be the victim of all this, as part of the planning application. With CrossRail & CR2 it simply won't be needed.

That's ridiculous. LCY still has a convenience factor. Even with ground links to LHR, LHR is still massive airport in one of the largest O&D markets in the world. The presence of LAX doesn't kill demand at smaller nearby airports in Low Angeles.

Jshank83 · Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:11 pm

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:
I am really late to the 3rd runway convo. Where are they wanting to put it? I looked on a map and couldn't figure out the best place.

Northwest of the current runwys. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44357580 There's a plan a bit down the page.

Basically you would end up razing two villages and having to tunnel the M25 ring motorway. Not a small or peaceful thing to do. People tend to get very attached to their homes and land.

Thanks. North was about the only place I thought they could fit one but I wasn't sure if they were actually going to pretty much get rid of a town in the process.

jamesontheroad · Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:12 pm

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:
I am really late to the 3rd runway convo. Where are they wanting to put it? I looked on a map and couldn't figure out the best place.

Northwest of the current runwys. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44357580 There's a plan a bit down the page.

There's a slightly more detailed plan here.

So the third runway is parallel, to the north and slightly offset to the west of 09L/27R. The current proposals suggest an additional axial satellite terminal with north and south facing stands along its length, again between the two runways. This image defines a consolidated 'commercial zone' as well; if I could wish for one thing it would be a single consolidated multi-storey car hire facility in one complex right here.

OA940 · Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:14 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
uta999 wrote:
OA940 wrote:
I think they should just send all the traffic to LCY. Lots of expansion room for EK there.

London City could be the victim of all this, as part of the planning application. With CrossRail & CR2 it simply won't be needed.

That's ridiculous. LCY still has a convenience factor. Even with ground links to LHR, LHR is still massive airport in one of the largest O&D markets in the world. The presence of LAX doesn't kill demand at smaller nearby airports in Low Angeles.

I mean I have to agree here. LCY is very convenient for businessmen and people that wanna get to downtown. Also if it closes I'm going there and forcing them to keep it open.

flyingclrs727 · Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:18 pm

jamesontheroad wrote:
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:
I am really late to the 3rd runway convo. Where are they wanting to put it? I looked on a map and couldn't figure out the best place.

Northwest of the current runwys. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44357580 There's a plan a bit down the page.

There's a slightly more detailed plan here.

So the third runway is parallel, to the north and slightly offset to the west of 09L/27R. The current proposals suggest an additional axial satellite terminal with north and south facing stands along its length, again between the two runways. This image defines a consolidated 'commercial zone' as well; if I could wish for one thing it would be a single consolidated multi-storey car hire facility in one complex right here.

That map shows that there is a place to add a fourth runway to the south. All that's needed is to fill in the man made reservoirs and install tunnels to divert roads while filling them in.

Bongodog1964 · Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:36 pm

rutankrd wrote:
Some luv’ly gerimandering in these moves by the Maybot and Grayling imho.

Bring to parliament to second most contentious issue days before summer recess. Force a three line whip on the issue and wait it out till the autumn.

After which the Maybot may have been confined to history by her own colleagues !

Such a major infrastructure development whether you are for or against shouldn’t have the Tory’s bringing parliament into such disrepute imho.

It could certainly wait out a few more months imho

Seems it’s Grayling once again shifting and hiding and perhaps burying his responsibilities for the rail industry crisis !

The vote is timetabled for within 3 weeks, I make that 26th June at the latest, the summer recess doesn't start until July 24th, so the vote isn't just days before. No one has mentioned a 3 line whip, indeed its already been mentioned that some mp's on the govt side will not be voting.

As to "it could wait a few months" the last thing this plan needs is yet more delays, it has been knocking around since 2006 with no one having the courage to even make the decision to take the plan to a vote.

if you are going to suggest gerimandering, you probably need to look up what it means: For everyone's benefit it is the process of manipulating electoral boundaries in order to influence voting. As there are no electoral boundaries being changed here and every mp in the UK will have a vote its not gerimandering.

ZaphodHarkonnen · Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:58 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
jamesontheroad wrote:
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Northwest of the current runwys. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44357580 There's a plan a bit down the page.

There's a slightly more detailed plan here.

So the third runway is parallel, to the north and slightly offset to the west of 09L/27R. The current proposals suggest an additional axial satellite terminal with north and south facing stands along its length, again between the two runways. This image defines a consolidated 'commercial zone' as well; if I could wish for one thing it would be a single consolidated multi-storey car hire facility in one complex right here.

That map shows that there is a place to add a fourth runway to the south. All that's needed is to fill in the man made reservoirs and install tunnels to divert roads while filling them in.

I would be surprised if they did that. That's part of London's water supply. You'd need to find a replacement before touching those.

flyingclrs727 · Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:10 pm

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
jamesontheroad wrote:

There's a slightly more detailed plan here.

So the third runway is parallel, to the north and slightly offset to the west of 09L/27R. The current proposals suggest an additional axial satellite terminal with north and south facing stands along its length, again between the two runways. This image defines a consolidated 'commercial zone' as well; if I could wish for one thing it would be a single consolidated multi-storey car hire facility in one complex right here.

That map shows that there is a place to add a fourth runway to the south. All that's needed is to fill in the man made reservoirs and install tunnels to divert roads while filling them in.

I would be surprised if they did that. That's part of London's water supply. You'd need to find a replacement before touching those.

I realize that, but if you zoom out a little there are places to the west where other reservoirs could be expanded with out encroaching on already developed land.

Jayafe · Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:27 pm

Egerton wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
So let's see how they manage to screw this up..... should be interesting.

The politics must be difficult for you, but the UK is a representative parliamentary democracy...

It's not difficult. Politicians in general, and British in particular, are specialist in messing up situations and applying wrong remedies. Just a matter of time that they mess it up. Just a matter of reviewing history with neutral eyes.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net