It might be a good time to push for LHR expansion now with the excuse of needing more connection to the world now that UK is leaving EU and connectivity should be furthered to compensate that...

I just wanted all the money coming back from the banks to go towards investing in a new airport. Somewhere between BHX and LHR, connected to High Speed 2 and the M40.

Heathrow could then be closed and the colossal land value of West London real estate it sits on, realised. That alone would repay a good part of the cost of LHR2 or whatever they decide to call it.

This twiddling round the margins is just a joke. In fact, a few old air bases are still around as a starter. Have some vision for once like Hong Kong did with CLK.

We started the Industrial revolution and built the bloody world's foundations, for God's sake. This country has lost its bite; the desire to dream big and build bigger.

Egerton wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

So let's see how they manage to screw this up

The politics must be difficult for you, but the UK is a representative parliamentary democracy. It took us some . . . blah blah pointless blah

Awww, that's cute: you're still naive enough to conflate the ability to decide for themselves, with a tendency to decide based on linear logic. Presh.

I'm wondering how the new slots will be allocated whent he runway is built? Say it increases capacity by a third does this mean BA and ther airlines already at LHR get a third increase in their current slots?

If BA do suddenly have lots of new slots will they need to now order about 150 new aircraft?

Oh and this runway will obliterate BA's headquarters so they will be needing to build a new HQ so busy times for them!

I hope Heathrow use this opportunity to finally remove ALL cars, Uber, taxis, hire cars and buses from the central area. They should all be moved north, under the new runway, so all those eyesores, along the A4 and northern perimeter road can be demolished. Only pods, trains and electric anywhere near the airport itself.

This would finally free up land for the full toast rack satellites and new stands, which are probably needed more than the new runway itself.

goosebayguy wrote:

I'm wondering how the new slots will be allocated whent he runway is built? Say it increases capacity by a third does this mean BA and ther airlines already at LHR get a third increase in their current slots?

If BA do suddenly have lots of new slots will they need to now order about 150 new aircraft?

Oh and this runway will obliterate BA's headquarters so they will be needing to build a new HQ so busy times for them!

I'm sure a new HQ is the least of BA's worries. Opening up Heathrow to easyjet will be a bigger problem.

The Chinese airlines will also do well out of this while EK prepares to put an A380 every hour into LHR.

goosebayguy wrote:

I'm wondering how the new slots will be allocated whent he runway is built? Say it increases capacity by a third does this mean BA and ther airlines already at LHR get a third increase in their current slots?

If BA do suddenly have lots of new slots will they need to now order about 150 new aircraft?

Oh and this runway will obliterate BA's headquarters so they will be needing to build a new HQ so busy times for them!

No rush for slots, aircrafts or HQ....

Geoff1947 wrote:

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

Geoff

LAX772LR wrote:

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

This rather assumes expansion of LHR is a "slam dunk" the best option, which isn't accurate. It is finely balanced and many of the arguments used to support the scheme in 2015 have either been undermined, or shown to be wrong in the time that has elapsed since.

The issues everyone knows will cause legal problems are the environmental and competition ones. The scheme relies on "optimistic" projections of electric car development and use of public transport, and it is difficult to see how the scheme can get through those barriers, but anything is possible.

Financially, the scheme at LGW has been shown to offer the best financial return for the UK as a whole. This was one of LHR's main arguments and it has caused the government to shift its position slightly.

The ability of LHR to finance the scheme without increasing landing charges remains a problem. Also, there is no agreement in who will pay for the public transport improvements (relied upon by the environmental case).

The regional connectivity argument was undermined by the airlines who simply stated they would not fly routes that were commercially unviable. The high charges required by the present scheme would require government subsidy to make new regional routes commercially viable - increasing the cost of the scheme to the UK taxpayer (whilst offering no benefit tomconnections over AMS, or any other hub).

In other words, the government, LHR and the politicians could do everything right, but the scheme could still be blocked because it does not offer the benefits it claims to offer and upon which the case for expansion is built.

I hope Heathrow use this opportunity to finally remove ALL cars, Uber, taxis, hire cars and buses from the central area. They should all be moved north, under the new runway, so all those eyesores, along the A4 and northern perimeter road can be demolished. Only pods, trains and electric anywhere near the airport itself.

This would finally free up land for the full toast rack satellites and new stands, which are probably needed more than the new runway itself.

How does a 3rd runway alleviate the often ever so slow departure rate due to congestion in the skies around LHR? It is the airspace that is full, not this myth that LHR is at capacity.

Jshank83 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.

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.

A large part of the land required is already owned by Heathrow Airport Ltd. They, and their predecessors BAA, have been buying up just about everything in the area that comes onto the market for many years now. Many of the homes involved, though admittedly not all of them, are rented short-term from HAL so the occupants don't have such an attachment to them. And the locations ceased to be towns or villages about 50 years ago when the edge of the London continuous built up area reached them, they're just districts within London now, and if you've ever been to them, they just look like suburban sprawl.

If i lived in the urban decay that is Harmondsworth and someone offered me 125% for my house, book the removal lorry!

Geoff1947 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?

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

Geoff

Yes, to 15-20 years at least. This thing is going to contested at every stage. Obviously the airport owners don't know the UK that well.

andymartin wrote:

If i lived in the urban decay that is Harmondsworth and someone offered me 125% for my house, book the removal lorry!

According to yesterday's parliamentary statement the £2.6bn compensation scheme is funded by the UK taxpayer.

andymartin wrote:

How does a 3rd runway alleviate the often ever so slow departure rate due to congestion in the skies around LHR? It is the airspace that is full, not this myth that LHR is at capacity.

I think the idea is they don't run the 3rd runway to full capacity. Maybe 60-70% unlike the other 2 at 98%. Congestion should be relieved while new flights are added.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

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 hadn't really considered it before, but might it be cost-effective to build a runway across the reservoirs - a la Funchal - without actually draining them? Looking at that map you've got just enough room for a parallel runway heading East from M25 J13, or otherwise could go over the M25 north of J13.

An even cheaper option would be to simply build up a dike through the reservoirs with channels to allow water flow.

No houses to demolish, less politics and permits etc., and they could even make some money by selling the land they bought to the North.

Edit: realise there might be potential contamination issues to overcome though - hmm...

andymartin wrote:

How does a 3rd runway alleviate the often ever so slow departure rate due to congestion in the skies around LHR? It is the airspace that is full, not this myth that LHR is at capacity.

That's simple. The sky near LHR is full because of the four holding patterns around it, which in my view are too close to London and it's other airports. The idea is that most of the time arriving aircraft will be vectored straight in, with no delay to the two landing runways, while the other runway and an occasional 'mixed mode' deal with departures.

It's the aircraft holding around London that make the airspace look full. Remove those and it will run smoothly, subject to the weather. Another point is the very limited number of stands at LHR. These are frequently occupied, due largely to departure restrictions for the reasons above. If the airfield and stands available grew by 50-100%, then the problem of congestion on the ground evaporates as well.

Andy33 wrote:

Jshank83 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.

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.

A large part of the land required is already owned by Heathrow Airport Ltd. They, and their predecessors BAA, have been buying up just about everything in the area that comes onto the market for many years now. Many of the homes involved, though admittedly not all of them, are rented short-term from HAL so the occupants don't have such an attachment to them. And the locations ceased to be towns or villages about 50 years ago when the edge of the London continuous built up area reached them, they're just districts within London now, and if you've ever been to them, they just look like suburban sprawl.

Interesting. I haven't been to London yet so I appreciate the info!

andymartin wrote:

How does a 3rd runway alleviate the often ever so slow departure rate due to congestion in the skies around LHR? It is the airspace that is full, not this myth that LHR is at capacity.

One more runaway, one more landing path, reconfiguration of the airspace and avoiding delays landing/taking off due to taxi restrictions caused by having only 2 runways.

Arion640 wrote:

andymartin wrote:

How does a 3rd runway alleviate the often ever so slow departure rate due to congestion in the skies around LHR? It is the airspace that is full, not this myth that LHR is at capacity.

I think the idea is they don't run the 3rd runway to full capacity. Maybe 60-70% unlike the other 2 at 98%. Congestion should be relieved while new flights are added.

Thats one of the main arguments to be had yet between politicians and airport operators thats going to be fun to watch, and will be a lot more nuanced than any politician has the ability to grasp yet.

Minister of Transport Chris Grayling said in his statement to the House, that the development of Heathrow will be paid for privately; i.e.; (largely by plane passengers through departure fees and assorted airport usage taxes and charges). He also said that 15% of new capacity would be to develop 'regional connectivity'. I suppose by that he means improved or new services to Liverpool, maybe Humberside, Teeside, Doncaster-Sheffield, Exeter, Cardiff maybe, Jersey maybe, Birmingham maybe, who knows. I'm sure these new connections will have to be funded by some kind of development grant; (read public subsidy). Given the £22bn+ cost of the plan; LCC's like BE, FR and BE will be quick to complain about new fees..

This was exactly why Willie Walsh said BA was against the 3rd runway, because he didn't want his passengers paying extra taxes to pay for the thing. Heathrow is an expensive airport to operate from, and nobody will want to pay the bill; so in the end the taxpayers will pay, despite what Grayling says.........

This is why I personally concluded along time ago that expanding Heathrow physically was not the solution to airport capacities in the south-east of England; (which is the answer to the original question posed).

Much better, (and cheaper), IMO was to massively expand rail services; using (largely) existing infrastructure. It wouldn't take much effort to have hourly 300+ seat fast train services to the major British and near-European conurbations that would take pressure off LHR expansion by releasing slots currently used to short-haul flight destinations like MAN/ LBA/ BRU/ CDG.

Just a shame none of our politicians are capable of any lateral thinking.......

SelseyBill wrote:

Given the £22bn+ cost of the plan; LCC's like BE, FR and BE will be quick to complain about new fees..

This was exactly why Willie Walsh said BA was against the 3rd runway, because he didn't want his passengers paying extra taxes to pay for the thing....

Which is absolute BS. The only concern of BA is facing competition in their local (and protected) money printer.

Jayafe wrote:

SelseyBill wrote:

Given the £22bn+ cost of the plan; LCC's like BE, FR and BE will be quick to complain about new fees..

This was exactly why Willie Walsh said BA was against the 3rd runway, because he didn't want his passengers paying extra taxes to pay for the thing....

Which is absolute BS. The only concern of BA is facing competition in their local (and protected) money printer.

Why would an airline not be concerned about LHR charging ever higher (monopolistic) landing and passenger charges?

It was a central theme in the airlines evidence to the select committee, and they don't trust LHR management to control costs because its charging structure is dictated by the "regulated asset base" which includes the cost of this type of infrastructure.

This means that, perversely, LHR are incentivised to increase the cost of the scheme because it increased the regulated asset base which allows them to charge the airlines more.

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.



Heathrow are making things very difficult for themselves. Why not shorten the new runway to 8000' and leave the M25/M4 where it is? Aircraft up to 787/A350 could still use it, and the A380 and 747s may disappear by 2030 anyway. That would probably shave £8B off the price and work could start next year, once its agreed and passed planning. It would also reduce the number of objections, regarding the nightmare that is the M25/M4 Jct, while it is moved into a tunnel. It's just not needed.

The old barn should be saved too as a spotters hide accessed by pods.

DobboDobbo wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

SelseyBill wrote:

Given the £22bn+ cost of the plan; LCC's like BE, FR and BE will be quick to complain about new fees..

This was exactly why Willie Walsh said BA was against the 3rd runway, because he didn't want his passengers paying extra taxes to pay for the thing....

Which is absolute BS. The only concern of BA is facing competition in their local (and protected) money printer.

Why would an airline not be concerned about LHR charging ever higher (monopolistic) landing and passenger charges?

It was a central theme in the airlines evidence to the select committee, and they don't trust LHR management to control costs because its charging structure is dictated by the "regulated asset base" which includes the cost of this type of infrastructure.

This means that, perversely, LHR are incentivised to increase the cost of the scheme because it increased the regulated asset base which allows them to charge the airlines more.

Well if you're concerned about LHR becoming a monopoly, then LGW should be allowed to expand too.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

Which is absolute BS. The only concern of BA is facing competition in their local (and protected) money printer.

Why would an airline not be concerned about LHR charging ever higher (monopolistic) landing and passenger charges?

It was a central theme in the airlines evidence to the select committee, and they don't trust LHR management to control costs because its charging structure is dictated by the "regulated asset base" which includes the cost of this type of infrastructure.

This means that, perversely, LHR are incentivised to increase the cost of the scheme because it increased the regulated asset base which allows them to charge the airlines more.

Well if you're concerned about LHR becoming a monopoly, then LGW should be allowed to expand too.

LHR is already recognised as a monopoly, which is why the regulated asset base formula is used. I know this was raised at the select committee stage but I don't know if the reccomendation made it into the NPS.

For what it's worth, I agree LGW should have been allowed to expand, but the government stated one runway only.

DobboDobbo wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

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

This rather assumes expansion of LHR is a "slam dunk" the best option, which isn't accurate. It is finely balanced and many of the arguments used to support the scheme in 2015 have either been undermined, or shown to be wrong in the time that has elapsed since.

The issues everyone knows will cause legal problems are the environmental and competition ones. The scheme relies on "optimistic" projections of electric car development and use of public transport, and it is difficult to see how the scheme can get through those barriers, but anything is possible.

Financially, the scheme at LGW has been shown to offer the best financial return for the UK as a whole. This was one of LHR's main arguments and it has caused the government to shift its position slightly.

The ability of LHR to finance the scheme without increasing landing charges remains a problem. Also, there is no agreement in who will pay for the public transport improvements (relied upon by the environmental case).

The regional connectivity argument was undermined by the airlines who simply stated they would not fly routes that were commercially unviable. The high charges required by the present scheme would require government subsidy to make new regional routes commercially viable - increasing the cost of the scheme to the UK taxpayer (whilst offering no benefit tomconnections over AMS, or any other hub).

In other words, the government, LHR and the politicians could do everything right, but the scheme could still be blocked because it does not offer the benefits it claims to offer and upon which the case for expansion is built.

LGW should get at least a second runway. LHR should get two new runways. The optimal strategy four or five decades ago would have been to build a new hub somewhere else as Paris did in the 1970's.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

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

This rather assumes expansion of LHR is a "slam dunk" the best option, which isn't accurate. It is finely balanced and many of the arguments used to support the scheme in 2015 have either been undermined, or shown to be wrong in the time that has elapsed since.

The issues everyone knows will cause legal problems are the environmental and competition ones. The scheme relies on "optimistic" projections of electric car development and use of public transport, and it is difficult to see how the scheme can get through those barriers, but anything is possible.

Financially, the scheme at LGW has been shown to offer the best financial return for the UK as a whole. This was one of LHR's main arguments and it has caused the government to shift its position slightly.

The ability of LHR to finance the scheme without increasing landing charges remains a problem. Also, there is no agreement in who will pay for the public transport improvements (relied upon by the environmental case).

The regional connectivity argument was undermined by the airlines who simply stated they would not fly routes that were commercially unviable. The high charges required by the present scheme would require government subsidy to make new regional routes commercially viable - increasing the cost of the scheme to the UK taxpayer (whilst offering no benefit tomconnections over AMS, or any other hub).

In other words, the government, LHR and the politicians could do everything right, but the scheme could still be blocked because it does not offer the benefits it claims to offer and upon which the case for expansion is built.

LGW should get at least a second runway. LHR should get two new runways. The optimal strategy four or five decades ago would have been to build a new hub somewhere else as Paris did in the 1970's.

That is perhaps best for the aviation element, but would struggle to get off the ground in terms of affordability (there are doubts about LHR financing one runaway) and would obviously fail on environmental grounds.

DobboDobbo wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

Why would an airline not be concerned about LHR charging ever higher (monopolistic) landing and passenger charges?

It was a central theme in the airlines evidence to the select committee, and they don't trust LHR management to control costs because its charging structure is dictated by the "regulated asset base" which includes the cost of this type of infrastructure.

This means that, perversely, LHR are incentivised to increase the cost of the scheme because it increased the regulated asset base which allows them to charge the airlines more.

Well if you're concerned about LHR becoming a monopoly, then LGW should be allowed to expand too.

LHR is already recognised as a monopoly, which is why the regulated asset base formula is used. I know this was raised at the select committee stage but I don't know if the reccomendation made it into the NPS.

For what it's worth, I agree LGW should have been allowed to expand, but the government stated one runway only.

Give it 2-3 years when the LHR 3rd runway is too far ahead to be stopped, the Gatwick project will be back on the table. But if Labour get into power (god help the UK if it does happen) any future major infrastructure projects can be kissed goodbye too, except maybe a few communist style statues of Jeremy Corbyn erected around the country.

Arion640 wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Well if you're concerned about LHR becoming a monopoly, then LGW should be allowed to expand too.

LHR is already recognised as a monopoly, which is why the regulated asset base formula is used. I know this was raised at the select committee stage but I don't know if the reccomendation made it into the NPS.

For what it's worth, I agree LGW should have been allowed to expand, but the government stated one runway only.

Give it 2-3 years when the LHR 3rd runway is too far ahead to be stopped, the Gatwick project will be back on the table. But if Labour get into power (god help the UK if it does happen) any future major infrastructure projects can be kissed goodbye too, except maybe a few communist style statues of Jeremy Corbyn erected around the country.

It will be 5-10 years, if all goes well, before LHR is too far advanced to be stopped (which I take to be spades in the ground).

For context, the latest political noises indicate there is a greater than expected (but probably still less than 50%) chance that the scheme could be dead in the water within the next 3 weeks - and that is the hurdle everyone expected it to clear.

uta999 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.



Heathrow are making things very difficult for themselves. Why not shorten the new runway to 8000' and leave the M25/M4 where it is? Aircraft up to 787/A350 could still use it, and the A380 and 747s may disappear by 2030 anyway. That would probably shave £8B off the price and work could start next year, once its agreed and passed planning. It would also reduce the number of objections, regarding the nightmare that is the M25/M4 Jct, while it is moved into a tunnel. It's just not needed.

The old barn should be saved too as a spotters hide accessed by pods.

The problem with a shorter runway of 8000' is that an over run to the West would end up sitting on the middle of the M25, the total cost inclusive of land purchase, demolition, terminal construction and runway building has variously been quoted at between £14bn and £18bn, I doubt the M25 tunnel will be £8bn of that, more likely it will be £1 - 2 bn to result in a safer option that is fully able to cope with all traffic.

DobboDobbo wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

LHR is already recognised as a monopoly, which is why the regulated asset base formula is used. I know this was raised at the select committee stage but I don't know if the reccomendation made it into the NPS.

For what it's worth, I agree LGW should have been allowed to expand, but the government stated one runway only.

Give it 2-3 years when the LHR 3rd runway is too far ahead to be stopped, the Gatwick project will be back on the table. But if Labour get into power (god help the UK if it does happen) any future major infrastructure projects can be kissed goodbye too, except maybe a few communist style statues of Jeremy Corbyn erected around the country.

It will be 5-10 years, if all goes well, before LHR is too far advanced to be stopped (which I take to be spades in the ground).

For context, the latest political noises indicate there is a greater than expected (but probably still less than 50%) chance that the scheme could be dead in the water within the next 3 weeks - and that is the hurdle everyone expected it to clear.

It will go through. Its not a hot topic like brexit and the labour mps have no reason not to back it. It's perfect timing for it while future focus goes on EU negotiations, both parliament and Media.

It won't be able to be stopped before they break ground. Contracts and bidding processes go into place well before start.

Arion640 wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Well if you're concerned about LHR becoming a monopoly, then LGW should be allowed to expand too.

LHR is already recognised as a monopoly, which is why the regulated asset base formula is used. I know this was raised at the select committee stage but I don't know if the reccomendation made it into the NPS.

For what it's worth, I agree LGW should have been allowed to expand, but the government stated one runway only.

Give it 2-3 years when the LHR 3rd runway is too far ahead to be stopped, the Gatwick project will be back on the table. But if Labour get into power (god help the UK if it does happen) any future major infrastructure projects can be kissed goodbye too, except maybe a few communist style statues of Jeremy Corbyn erected around the country.

Well as the LHR third runway project winds down, there's got to be somewhere for all the contruction companies and workers to go next.

Andy33 wrote:

A large part of the land required is already owned by Heathrow Airport Ltd. They, and their predecessors BAA, have been buying up just about everything in the area that comes onto the market for many years now.

I know that this very much was the case but, didn't HAL agree to stop this practice a few years back?

When the move to compulsory purchase happens those that waited will be sorely disappointing!
The rules are VERY STRICT and they WILL loose the current bonuses as you entitled to significantly inferior compensation coving commercial property valuation legal cost and moving costs only.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

LHR is already recognised as a monopoly, which is why the regulated asset base formula is used. I know this was raised at the select committee stage but I don't know if the reccomendation made it into the NPS.

For what it's worth, I agree LGW should have been allowed to expand, but the government stated one runway only.

Give it 2-3 years when the LHR 3rd runway is too far ahead to be stopped, the Gatwick project will be back on the table. But if Labour get into power (god help the UK if it does happen) any future major infrastructure projects can be kissed goodbye too, except maybe a few communist style statues of Jeremy Corbyn erected around the country.

Well as the LHR third runway project winds down, there's got to be somewhere for all the contruction companies and workers to go next.

You give UK infrastructure planning too much credit!!!

The UK House of Commons is due to vote on Heathrow's 3rd runway on Monday. It is likely to pass as most MP's are in favour, even though the Labour party leadership is against it. It is out of step with both the public (again) and most of its own MP's. Luckily it will be a free vote so should get through. However, if it does fail at this hurdle, then what?

Something that puzzles me, the Greens and Nimby crowd (the great unwashed), wanting high speed rail instead. The latest cost estimate for HS2 is £56 Billion, double the original for a Y shape line across the middle of the UK, that only gets half way anyway! How many domestic air services to regional airports from LHR with a 3rd runway (and others), could be subsidised for the next 25 years, for just one tenth of that amount? I think HS Rail in the UK is more of a folly than a 3rd runway would be, and the rail fares would be similar to airfares than they are now.

https://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2018/04 ... -cost.html

I guess BA needs to find a new spot for its HQ soon!

On Tuesday, Heathrow should send out offer letters for 150% of the valuation of property locally affected. Let's get this wrapped up by Christmas.

uta999 wrote:

On Tuesday, Heathrow should send out offer letters for 150% of the valuation of property locally affected. Let's get this wrapped up by Christmas.

I am sure WW can’t wait to receive his letter.

senatorflyer wrote:

I guess BA needs to find a new spot for its HQ soon!

Even if the political and (importantly) legal processes go smoothly for the government, we are likely to be well into the 2020s before any construction begins.

Within that period there is significant political and financial risk for the project.

Firstly, labour now formally opposes the scheme as it does not meet their four (admittedly vague) tests as to the environment, noise, capacity boost and regional development. They will not whip their vote, but it does mean the scheme is liable to cancellation under a change of government. This makes it harder to finance (amongst other things).

Second, the transport secretary who proposed this scheme may be sacked in the coming days. He survived a vote of no confidence last night, since when further damaging revelations have emerged about his lack of competence in mandling the rail industry.

Third, no one really knows who is going to pay to make it happen. For example, surface access is a bit chicken and egg in the sense that everybody is agreed that a significant (£10-20bn depending on who you believe) amount of investment in infrastructure is required for the scheme to be viable. However, neither the government or LHr will agree to pay for it. Also, there is a real question about LHR's ability to finance the scheme out of existing cash flows if the government commits to a "no increased charges" policy (it would likely be difficult not to on competition grounds).

Finally, There are significant questions about the post Brexit regulatory and financial environment which are likely to cause delays to the scheme (which will inevitably have to be re-evaluated as against the new environment). All of these factors point to a lengthy process for an end result that is inherently uncertain and liable to be undercut by cheaper alternatives in Europe and beyond.

Regarding the point about timing - i.e. Nothing will happen any time soon.

DobboDobbo wrote:

Regarding the point about timing - i.e. Nothing will happen any time soon.

Finding a new HQ to house 4000 employees won’t be easy and quick either.

senatorflyer wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

Regarding the point about timing - i.e. Nothing will happen any time soon.

Finding a new HQ to house 4000 employees won’t be easy and quick either.

Very true - I daresay its a lot quicker than runway three!1

UK MP's will likely vote today in favour of the 3rd runway at Heathrow. The plan being for a very slight incline (1%) west over the M25, rather than a new tunnel. This would make it far easier and quicker to build. The legal challenges begin, but I think will fail.

Ironically, we will probably be having this discussion again in ten years time for a 4th runway, after an expanded BA and EZ use up all the new slots. By then, Gatwick and Stansted could be getting one too.

uta999 wrote:

UK MP's will likely vote today in favour of the 3rd runway at Heathrow. The plan being for a very slight incline (1%) west over the M25, rather than a new tunnel. This would make it far easier and quicker to build. The legal challenges begin, but I think will fail.

Ironically, we will probably be having this discussion again in ten years time for a 4th runway, after an expanded BA and EZ use up all the new slots. By then, Gatwick and Stansted could be getting one too.

This is the gimme stage - MPs have voted for LHR runway three several times in the past couple of decades. The expectation is that they will do so again.

The blocking stage of this scheme is likely to be the legal one, where the government/LHR's case has problems on environmental and competition grounds. In the unlikely event of passing the legal stage, the project faces financial challenges. Even if it passes these steps, it is likely to take a decade to build this and the supporting infrastructure.

All in all, it is far more likely that we will still be talking about LHR runway three in ten years, rather than runway 4.

People like to claim that a 3rd runway goes against our climate change commitments. How can an airport with 1300 movements a day, and an average delay of 20 minutes be greener than an airport with no delays?

Also, there are 32 million vehicles on UK roads. It might be worth tackling that problem way before aviation. Everyone who drives on the M3/M25/M4/M40 everyday, knows that Heathrow Airport has absolutely nothing to do with air quality or traffic congestion. Probably fewer than 5% of traffic is related to the airport.

If you think more aircraft at LHR and cars on the road network because of LHR will result in less localised pollution - good luck to you!

Has anyone seen any projections on how long it will take to make up for the costs involved? Hard to do this to great accuracy I know but even a rough projection would be interesting. Where is the money for this coming from and what will need to be dropped to pay for this instead? The NHS isn't in great shape, education isn't great and services like the police extremely stretched. Will they need further cuts to help fund this? Will taxes go up (inflation is already pretty high and with Brexit doesn't look to be getting better)?

Will we end up with a bigger capacity LHR yet less people able to afford to fly because everyone has been squeezed to pay for it in the first place?

RvA wrote:

Has anyone seen any projections on how long it will take to make up for the costs involved? Hard to do this to great accuracy I know but even a rough projection would be interesting. Where is the money for this coming from and what will need to be dropped to pay for this instead? The NHS isn't in great shape, education isn't great and services like the police extremely stretched. Will they need further cuts to help fund this? Will taxes go up (inflation is already pretty high and with Brexit doesn't look to be getting better)?

Will we end up with a bigger capacity LHR yet less people able to afford to fly because everyone has been squeezed to pay for it in the first place?

The vast majority is coming from private sources so it wont have any impact on the NHS or police like what you are suggesting. Airlines and passengers will end up paying for it in the long run.

DobboDobbo wrote:

If you think more aircraft at LHR and cars on the road network because of LHR will result in less localised pollution - good luck to you!

You didn't read what I said. The problem of air quality in London has absolutely nothing to do with Heathrow. Very few drivers in west London are anything to do with the airport. A LHR with no delays would be a bit cleaner than one now, which has average delays of 15-20 minutes x 480,000 movements per year. So yes, an expanded Heathrow probably is greener.

This project will also mean something is actually done to improve the M25/M4 junction, which is a bottleneck for everyone, probably less than 1% are actually using the airport.