Airport expansions

[YorkRailFan]

Ah climate, the biggest load of bolloxology since we were all told that we’d kill each other if we stood within two meters of anyone else. Both primarily designed to keep us all in our places. What’s the alternative to allowing air transport to grow? Constrain demand through state-mandated prices hikes? Refuse to develop additional infrastructure? Those approaches are so blinkered. The human race doesn’t make progress and improve through being inhibited, restricted and taxed. It does so by being allowed to unfetteredly grow and innovate. Until we accept this and let go of the net zero lunacy, the UK will have one massive hand tied behind its back. Trump seems to know what‘s needed - sadly the UK government seems not to want to know.

Building HS2 in full (To Leeds, Manchester and Crewe) and boosting Eurostar services would allow for short haul flights where a 2-3 hour rail alternative is available to be banned. This would free up quite a few slots at Heathrow and Gatwick.

And which airline is going to do it? British Airways has Heathrow (hub and business) and Gatwick (more point-to-point and leisure). Ryanair and easyJet aren’t interested in connections as their business model doesn’t support it. Perhaps we could invite Emirates to set up a Dubai clone in Essex?

Virgin Atlantic has been growing their Manchester presence, granted they don't have short haul flights but their partner Air France-KLM does. Aer Lingus has also been growing their Manchester base in recent years.

 

[camflyer]

Stansted needs faster connections to London and better rail connections eastwards. I always toy with the idea in my head of North Weald aerodrome having become a site for a major airport. Right on the Central Line and next to the M25

Since we are talking fantasies on this thread, maybe make Stansted the northern terminus of Crossrail 2?!

As for connections to places like Norwich and Ipswich then I'm not sure what the solution would be. Would a line to Colchester make sense?

 

[Skymonster]

I'd be interested to know if @pug1, @TravelDream and @Skymonster currently live in the vicinity of an airport. It's all well and good pontificating about the benefits to the country as a whole when you're not personally affected.

I live well within earshot of the departure track from EMA which, as previously mentioned, has the busiest runway in the country in the early hours (you know, the period when most people sleep, but claim aircraft noise disrupts it - even Heathrow is quiet during that period, but not EMA). And I’m almost directly under the circuit path which the Ryanair trainer (usually a 737-800) uses repetitively some days throughout a good proportion of the day.

I have had just one cause to complain, when Wizzair was training as well as Ryanair. The airport’s entry in the UK AIP says that jet training is only allowed by based operators. Wizzair does not fly to EMA. The airport responded rapidly, saying it was an oversight that a Wizzair request for training was accepted and it wouldn’t happen again. And it hasn’t. The Wizzair A320 didn’t particularly bother me per se but I do believe all airports and operators should be held to account for official policies including noise abatement, noise preferential routings, constant rate descents, SIDs and STARs, and other mitigation measures.

I can’t say that I have ever been bothered by the aircraft, even overnight and they certainly don’t disturb my sleep.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Since we are talking fantasies on this thread, maybe make Stansted the northern terminus of Crossrail 2?!

As for connections to places like Norwich and Ipswich then I'm not sure what the solution would be. Would a line to Colchester make sense?

For some reason that was absolutely ruled out.

 

[Bald Rick]

Building HS2 in full (To Leeds, Manchester and Crewe) and boosting Eurostar services would allow for short haul flights where a 2-3 hour rail alternative is available to be banned. This would free up quite a few slots at Heathrow and Gatwick.

As I mentioned above, for Heathrow that would release about a sixth of the capacity of the third runway. But bear in mind that a substantial chunk of the passengers using those flights are changing planes at Heathrow or Paris.

For some reason that was absolutely ruled out.

Re Crossrail 2 - yes, because it is a silly idea! It would need another two track the whole way. That’s a lot of railway to build to enable people to get a train that would be overtaken, twice, by the existing servcices.

 

[Skymonster]

Building HS2 in full (To Leeds, Manchester and Crewe) and boosting Eurostar services would allow for short haul flights where a 2-3 hour rail alternative is available to be banned. This would free up quite a few slots at Heathrow and Gatwick.

LMAO. Heathrow’s third runway will be built long before HS2 gets anywhere near Leeds or Manchester. And, as I said previously, the blinkered decision to exclude a station at Heathrow from the HS2 route makes a nonsense of the idea that air travellers will mode-shift to/from surface transport for domestic legs. In any case there are no flights from Heathrow to Crewe or Leeds, and releasing the relatively small number of slots used for flights to Manchester won’t make much of a dent in the demand for additional services. But I suppose you’re the sort who irrationally thinks that disrupting people’s lives and building a massive concrete, steel and wire carbuncle through open countryside is OK because its a railway, but building a runway on a largely unused site not too far from London is not OK.

 

[YorkRailFan]

LMAO. Heathrow’s third runway will be built long before HS2 gets anywhere near Leeds or Manchester. And, as I said previously, the blinkered decision to exclude a station at Heathrow from the HS2 route makes a nonsense of the idea that air travellers will mode-shift to/from surface transport for domestic legs. In any case there are no flights from Heathrow to Crewe or Leeds, and releasing the relatively small number of slots used for flights to Manchester won’t make much of a dent in the demand for additional services. But I suppose you’re the sort who irrationally thinks that disrupting people’s lives and building a massive concrete, steel and wire carbuncle through open countryside is OK because its a railway, but building a runway on a largely unused site not too far from London is not OK.

Sorry, you want a massive concrete runway built where people live yet you say HS2 is far more disruptive to the people living along the route? Heathrow's third runway will require thousands to be re-homed in a very dense area, HS2 will not. HS2 will also speed up journeys to Glasgow and Edinburgh, thus allowing those flights to be wound down and free up more slots.

HS2's decision to not build a Station at Heathrow saves a lot of money, you have previously complained about spiralling costs of HS2, a Station at Heathrow would've only added to those costs. Its also not uncommon at major airports around the world, for people to have to take a commuter rail service (like the Elizabeth Line) to another station away from the airport and change onto the mainline railway.

 

[sannox]

The airport has submitted the following applications to the council this month:

Planning Application details not available

citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk

These kind of minor applications are just adding minor bits and sticking plasters. Edinburgh really needs a wholesale rebuild to cope with passenger numbers it now has, but I can't see it happening.

When I flew last summer at peak times it was really crowded, and having the gates in the shopping/eating/waiting bit, makes it so busy

 

[Skymonster]

HS2 will also speed up journeys to Glasgow and Edinburgh, thus allowing those flights to be wound down and free up more slots.

HS2 has been under construction for eight years already, and just the piddly little bit to Birmingham won’t open for at least another four years. Total at least twelve years, for 90 odd miles. It won’t get to Glasgow and Edinburgh within my lifetime, possibly not yours either. Heathrow’s third runway could be done and dusted well within 12 years.

HS2's decision to not build a Station at Heathrow saves a lot of money, you have previously complained about spiralling costs of HS2, a Station at Heathrow would've only added to those costs.

Actually I was rather pro-HS when it had both legs, when it was to go all the way and when it was to call at Heathrow. I even advocated that it should be used for domestic legs, as long as passengers were protected on subsequent flight / trains if connections were missed. But now its not going via Heathrow and is only going to Birmingham, its a giant waste of the nation’s money. HS2 as it is now is costing a ridiculous amount of money but won’t fulfil its true potential, because railway self-interests got in the way (journey lengthened times, etc). The need for and cost to the nation of a third runway at Heathrow is in part a ramification of the decision not to spend on a Heathrow HS2 station.

Heathrow's third runway will require thousands to be re-homed in a very dense area

Heathrow’s third runway will be built on what is not far off from amounting to an already developed site whereas HS2 ruins the look of vast swathes of countryside. Relocating people who have already chosen to live near an airport in an urban area is a far better option than messing up beautiful landscapes and subjecting people who never expected to be near a massive railway to the change disruption it will cause.

 

[camflyer]

Sorry, you want a massive concrete runway built where people live yet you say HS2 is far more disruptive to the people living along the route? Heathrow's third runway will require thousands to be re-homed in a very dense area, HS2 will not. HS2 will also speed up journeys to Glasgow and Edinburgh, thus allowing those flights to be wound down and free up more slots.

HS2's decision to not build a Station at Heathrow saves a lot of money, you have previously complained about spiralling costs of HS2, a Station at Heathrow would've only added to those costs. Its also not uncommon at major airports around the world, for people to have to take a commuter rail service (like the Elizabeth Line) to another station away from the airport and change onto the mainline railway.

I was very pro-HS2 but the decision to drop the Heathrow link is one that I could live with as the connection at OOC should be simple enough. The axing of the northern legs though were nothing short of scandalous.

Better value for money would be the building of the Western Access link to the GWML and the Southern Access via Clapham Junction into the south east network.

 

[stuu]

HS2 has been under construction for eight years already, and just the piddly little bit to Birmingham won’t open for at least another four years. Total at least twelve years, for 90 odd miles. It won’t get to Glasgow and Edinburgh within my lifetime, possibly not yours either. Heathrow’s third runway could be done and dusted well within 12 years.

HS2 started construction in Autumn 2020, which wasn't 8 years ago

 

[Skymonster]

Actually you only have to look at the disruption caused by the recent storm to realise how domestic flights can be a much better option than rail services.

Aviation: no overhead wires down, no trees on runways, no flooded runways, cancellations during the height of the storm, a few aircraft out of place that can be moved back to where they belong in an hour or two by aircrew who are mostly willing to work and go beyond to get things running normally again.

Railway: wires down, tree on lines, flooding, signals not working due to power failures, cancellations on entire routes for two or more days and no guarantee of when things will be back to normal again, militant staff who insist on working to rule no matter how much it exacerbates the problems.

Bring on Heathrow’s third runway. Its in the nation’s and travellers best interests. I rest my case.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Heathrow’s third runway will be built on what is not far off from amounting to an already developed site whereas HS2 ruins the look of vast swathes of countryside. Relocating people who have already chosen to live near an airport in an urban area is a far better option than messing up beautiful landscapes and subjecting people who never expected to be near a massive railway to the change disruption it will cause.

HS2 will use tunnels in the Chilterns thanks to locals complaining about noise and aesthetics.

HS2 has been under construction for eight years already, and just the piddly little bit to Birmingham won’t open for at least another four years. Total at least twelve years, for 90 odd miles. It won’t get to Glasgow and Edinburgh within my lifetime, possibly not yours either. Heathrow’s third runway could be done and dusted well within 12 years.

2 of those years were impacted by COVID lockdowns, even if HS2 never reaches Glasgow and Edinburgh, it will still significantly speed up journey times along the West Coast.

Actually I was rather pro-HS when it had both legs, when it was to go all the way and when it was to call at Heathrow. I even advocated that it should be used for domestic legs, as long as passengers were protected on subsequent flight / trains if connections were missed. But now its not going via Heathrow and is only going to Birmingham, its a giant waste of the nation’s money. HS2 as it is now is costing a ridiculous amount of money but won’t fulfil its true potential, because railway self-interests got in the way (journey lengthened times, etc). The need for and cost to the nation of a third runway at Heathrow is in part a ramification of the decision not to spend on a Heathrow HS2 station.

There is nothing that says HS2 can't go to Manchester, Labour could reinstate if they wish. I would like to make this clear, I'm not completely against a third runway at Heathrow, but I think there are more important infrastructure projects that the nation should be building, some of these will relieve congestion at Heathrow. As I've said, building HS2 *in full* and boosting Eurostar would allow for banning of short haul flights where a 2-3 hour rail alternative is available. Moving, and extending, the second runway at Gatwick to allow for simultaneous operation of the two runways will help. Only then, should a third runway at Heathrow be looked at, it should not be the priority of this Government, we need to look at addressing this problem in multiple ways. Heathrow will easily absorb the capacity of the third runway, then what? Build a fourth runway? A third runway at Heathrow would only be a piece in the puzzle of solving congestion, there are many other things we should do, I've mentioned some of them.

I was very pro-HS2 but the decision to drop the Heathrow link is one that I could live with as the connection at OOC should be simple enough. The axing of the northern legs though were nothing short of scandalous.

Better value for money would be the building of the Western Access link to the GWML and the Southern Access via Clapham Junction into the south east network.

Agree completely, HS2 needs to be built in full, and both the Southern and Western Rail Links need to be built.

Bring on Heathrow’s third runway. Its in the nation’s and travellers best interests. I rest my case.

Who actually benefits? Londoners put up with more noise and air pollution, everyone else in the country continues to travel to London as that's where the majority of flights leave from. Boosting connectivity with international flights from non-London airports, building HS2 in full, boosting Eurostar services, banning short haul flights where a 2-3 hour rail alternative exists and building the Western and Southern rail links would benefit everyone. Only then, should we look at building Heathrow's third runway.

 

[TravelDream]

These kind of minor applications are just adding minor bits and sticking plasters. Edinburgh really needs a wholesale rebuild to cope with passenger numbers it now has, but I can't see it happening.

A lot of it comes down to two things.
First cost and return on investment. The owners obviously want the greatest return for the lowest investment.
The second is that airports realise sticking plaster developments are likely to be approved without too many issues. Major rebuilds, on the other hand, will likely see many years spent in the courts and fighting against various groups/ government bodies which means many £££.

I'm a firm believer that national infrastructure projects planning/ permission should be taken out of the hands of local councils and put in the hands of a national pro-growth body with a limit of one judicial review in total on any project.

Bristol Airport's local council, for example, is determined to limit growth at the airport and, as a result, the economic development of the South West and South Wales. Why should one small authority have power over such a large area and why should there be such a massive democratic deficit?

I'd be interested to know if @pug1, @TravelDream and @Skymonster currently live in the vicinity of an airport. It's all well and good pontificating about the benefits to the country as a whole when you're not personally affected.

I grew up with a rail line at the end of the garden. Trains passing are fundamentally quite noisy, but you get used to it.

When the frequency of the trains increased (especially as there used to be basically no Sunday service), my parents were the first to complain. But as I said before, they chose to buy a house with a rail line at the end of the garden.
A line with one train an hour today could easily have multiple per hour tomorrow.

Heathrow has been there a very long time. Before 99.99%+++ of residents affected.

 

[Skymonster]

HS2 started construction in Autumn 2020, which wasn't 8 years ago

No it didn’t - work started in 2017 and site clearance around Euston was well underway the following year.

 

[pug1]

I'd be interested to know if @pug1, @TravelDream and @Skymonster currently live in the vicinity of an airport. It's all well and good pontificating about the benefits to the country as a whole when you're not personally affected.

Yes spent over 20 years living and working aviation which has included living very close to airports. I have tried to make the point that I do have environmental concerns about airport development and concerns about ‘building over half of west London’ as one member put it. However, my counter argument to that is that airports in their current form have now been around for decades, particularly Heathrow which for years had been one of the world’s busiest. If people live close to them they have to accept that there will be at least a level of disruption to their lives. There is a group against the expansion of LBA on ‘environmental’ grounds (they live close to it) but that airport has been operating for longer than any of them have been alive, it’s difficult to have sympathy for that.

I would say I have even more sympathy for those who live and lived on the proposed HS2 routes.

 

[stuu]

No it didn’t - work started in 2017 and site clearance around Euston was well underway the following year.

Some minor enabling works started in 2018, but proper civil engineering didn't start until 2020

 

[AlastairFraser]

I’m guessing that the number of people arriving at Euston with through tickets to Heathrow is not a lot. Probably not enough to justify more than an infrequent bus trip, maybe every 30 minutes? Plenty of standing around to be accounted for.

Sorry I meant St Pancras - was suggesting a Eurostar- shuttle - HeX combo.

It does. And the cost of running a hydrogen plane, especially the hydrogen itself and the fuelling facilities at every airport, means someone is going to have to take a fairly big decision.

For example, would IoM / NI ministers / Dundee councillors really want to spend all that extra money (and it would be a lot) to decarbonise a small handful of flights a day, when for the same money one expects they could do much more decarbonisation through other means?

Fair point, although we'll have to see how hydrogen raft technology matures (for other forum members, there is an ongoing project to trial hydrogen generation at the site of offshore wind turbines).

 

[gabrielhj07]

Sorry I meant St Pancras - was suggesting a Eurostar- shuttle - HeX combo

That might work, still not convinced about doing that with luggage though.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Sorry I meant St Pancras - was suggesting a Eurostar- shuttle - HeX combo.

Fair point, although we'll have to see how hydrogen raft technology matures (for other forum members, there is an ongoing project to trial hydrogen generation at the site of offshore wind turbines).

I proposed in my HS2 alternative plan extending HS1 Javelin trains from St Pancras through a Crossrail style underground station towards OOC, down to Heathrow and down to the SWML.

 

[och aye]

These kind of minor applications are just adding minor bits and sticking plasters. Edinburgh really needs a wholesale rebuild to cope with passenger numbers it now has, but I can't see it happening.

When I flew last summer at peak times it was really crowded, and having the gates in the shopping/eating/waiting bit, makes it so busy

To be fair, it would be pretty difficult to build a brand new terminal at the same location where EDI is currently located, while maintaining the operation of the existing terminal. I don't disagree with you with your assessment though. Many airport extensions in the UK tend to be bolt-on additions to existing terminal infrastructure, built as cheaply as possible. This has definitely been the case with GIP (now under Blackrock ownership) and continuing with VINCI Airports, when they purchased 50.01% of the airport from GIP last year. By coincidence (or not) the shareholder ownership of EDI is now exactly the same as Gatwick's.

Hopefully, at least, the road from Gogar roundabout will be approved by the Council this time round and thus people travelling from Edinburgh can avoid having to use the stretch of the A8 and Eastfield Road.

 

[Skymonster]

These kind of minor applications are just adding minor bits and sticking plasters. Edinburgh really needs a wholesale rebuild to cope with passenger numbers it now has, but I can't see it happening.

Edinburgh is aiming to expand its terminal under permitted development rights. Simplistically it means that the terminal can be enlarged a certain amount (can’t remember the percentage off-hand but up to 10% comes to mind) without the need to gain planning permission - the planning authority only needs to be notified / consulted. Its a way of adding capacity without going through all the rigmarole involved with larger expansions. Its easy to see why airport expansion is often handled piecemeal in this way as it tends to circumvent the NIMBYism and vehement objections. Entire new runways and terminals, such as those Heathrow is seeking to build, do not fall into the same planning category - more’s the pity.

 

[renegademaster]

Supporters of a third runway at Heathrow should state exactly what they propose to build, a complete list of other infrastructure changes needed, how much the third runway project and the other infrastructure changes needed to support it would cost in total, how much of this cost they expect Heathrow Airport to pay for, how much of this cost they expect taxpayers to pay for and how long it would all take and therefore the expected completion date.

That's what the planning application will be for

 

[Magdalia]

I'm a firm believer that national infrastructure projects planning/ permission should be taken out of the hands of local councils

That already happens with Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects using Development Consent Orders.

with a limit of one judicial review in total on any project.

There was an announcement about reducing access to judicial review last week.

Prime Minister clears path to get Britain building

Nuclear plants, trainlines and windfarms will be built quicker thanks to changes to the rules to stop blockers getting in the way of the government’s Plan for Change.

www.gov.uk

Press release

Prime Minister clears path to get Britain building​

Nuclear plants, trainlines and windfarms will be built quicker thanks to changes to the rules to stop blockers getting in the way of the government’s Plan for Change.
From:Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street and The Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer KCB KC MPPublished23 January 2025Last updated23 January 2025

 

[Tetchytyke]

You might think its poor practice to charge UK passengers more than European passengers, but that’s economics

I don’t particularly care which market upon which the airlines choose to dump their excess capacity.

My point is that the excess capacity exists, hence the use of heavily discounted fares to fill it. This excess capacity means that Heathrow does not require expansion.

It's all well and good pontificating about the benefits to the country as a whole when you're not personally affected.

It’s always the way.

Rachel Reeves- so confused she can’t remember what job she did at HBOS- has come out railing against “NIMBYs” who “hold up vital national infrastructure”. Funnily enough she isn’t proposing to build a nuclear power station at the bottom of her garden. And she’s not exactly rushing herself to go and live at the end of Myrtle Avenue.

Consequences are for the little people.

 

[bspahh]

Rachel Reeves- so confused she can’t remember what job she did at HBOS- has come out railing against “NIMBYs” who “hold up vital national infrastructure”. Funnily enough she isn’t proposing to build a nuclear power station at the bottom of her garden. And she’s not exactly rushing herself to go and live at the end of Myrtle Avenue.

Keir Starmer's recent comments about judicial reviews for planning for the A47 are discussed in this thread on BlueSky which has this quote

‪Michael Dnes‬ ‪@roadscholar.bsky.social‬

When the first challenge came, and I saw how thin it was, I told a colleague – if people misuse the law like this, one day the law will end up changing.

And the PM – a career human rights lawyer – seems to agree.

[snip]

And, TBH, this is just.

Judicial review is a crucial protection of our civil liberties. Not a back door for people who can't win democratic support for their beliefs.

Time to put the laws back to public use, not private agendas.

 

[Meerkat]

Heathrow has been there a very long time. Before 99.99%+++ of residents affected.

So an awful lot of residents will have been born there - why should they suffer even more noise, traffic and pollution?
There is no capacity for the extra traffic a 3rd runway will bring.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Keir Starmer's recent comments about judicial reviews for planning for the A47 are discussed in this thread on BlueSky which has this quote

The trouble is that these expansion plans never actually get put to the electorate. They get railroaded through. And even where local planning objects, the national government just overrides them.

 

[JCO1406]

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/london-city-airport-targets-leisure-market-with-a320neo-move-13297166

London City Airport is set to apply to make some changes to accommodate the A320neo. Would be great if this gets approved, meaning that airlines have more options outside of Heathrow.

 

[Tetchytyke]

London City Airport is set to apply to make some changes to accommodate the A320neo.

Funny how they didn’t mention this when they were applying for permission to expand passenger numbers, despite the widespread local opposition.

They just keep nibbling away at the safeguards put in place to protect local residents. No doubt our government will bend over and let City change its approach, letting it accept bigger and noisier aircraft and spreading the noise pollution even further across London. It’s all about growth and bugger the consequences.