Heathrow expansion.

[Peter Mugridge]

As I said early, it is likely to be between a third and half a degree and possibly up to 1 degree, which would be the more extreme end of the range.

That's an incline in the range of between 7 to 10in and possibly up to 20in, over every 100ft.


.

In which case it was hardly worth their while bothering to announce it as a ramp or anything else was it?

 

[northwichcat]

Lib Dems have announced their candidate in the Richmond by-election will be Sarah Olney who they are saying is ant-Brexit and anti-Heathrow Expansion and will campaign for better local transport, more affordable housing and health services improvements

https://twitter.com/i/moments/792744697773101060

 

[Wolfie]

Government plans to tackle pollution branded illegal by High Court....

http://www.edie.net/news/11/UK-Gove...court-case-won-by-ClientEarth-and-Sadiq-Khan/

A large nail in the coffin of the flawed idiotic policy of expanding Heathrow....

 

[daikilo]

Government plans to tackle pollution branded illegal by High Court....

http://www.edie.net/news/11/UK-Gove...court-case-won-by-ClientEarth-and-Sadiq-Khan/

A large nail in the coffin of the flawed idiotic policy of expanding Heathrow....

Inadequate may be a better word than illegal. That said, assuming the aircraft and airport activities do actually contribute to pollution, then yes, a government decision to expand it without clear measures to reduce pollution (not just hold it at current levels) would be non-compliant hence notionally illegal.

 

[Dr_Paul]

There used to be six runways at Heathrow - three further diagonals. That was in the days when it was more critical than it is now to take off and land exactly into the wind, so it was in fact three pairs of runways. The present two, albeit shorter in those days, the 04/22, another at the same angle at the west end of the airport and two further diagonals at almost right angles to those two and crossing them roughly in the middle.

There were originally three runways that ran northwest/southeast (I don't know the exact bearings, something like 33/15), but I don't know if they were ever used. The centre one was built on pretty quickly, when the central buildings were put up. To my knowledge, runway 23L/05R was in use until relatively recently, usually only for landing when there was a very strong southwest wind, but I can't recall 23R/05L ever being used.

Looking at the original plans, there were ideas for another three runways to the north of the Bath Road. This is why that area was not developed. Even though, with the concentration of traffic on the then 28/10 (now 27/09) runways, plans for two of them were dropped, the option for a third 28/10 (27/09) runway has always been there.

One of the ironies of the situation is that Sipson, Cranford and Harmondsworth have only survived as nice Middlesex villages because expansion of Heathrow north of the Bath Road has always been an option. Had the idea of expansion north of the Bath Road been fully abandoned, that area would have become part of the suburban sprawl down from Hayes and along from Hounslow.

 

[Puffing Devil]

The plan in the 1970s was for Stansted to become the London airport. It has clear land around it, prime for expansion. We should have built a new airport with multiple runways out there years ago. Heathrow is constrained by its location, central terminal hub and proximity to expensive housing, including one of the Queen's places, though she doesn't seem to complain.

Unfortunately, the ship has sailed. Frankfurt and Paris have better facilities and will continue to grow while we fight about a sticking plaster solution and the Middle-Eastern airlines steal all the travel to the East with better service, prices and facilities.

 

[tranzitjim]

Is there any chance of having District line run to Heathrow.

Either in addition to, or replacing the Piccadilly line for extra capacity?

 

[edwin_m]

Is there any chance of having District line run to Heathrow.

Either in addition to, or replacing the Piccadilly line for extra capacity?

The tunnels west of Hounslow were built to Tube dimensions so can't take District stock.

 

[anme]

The plan in the 1970s was for Stansted to become the London airport. It has clear land around it, prime for expansion. We should have built a new airport with multiple runways out there years ago. Heathrow is constrained by its location, central terminal hub and proximity to expensive housing, including one of the Queen's places, though she doesn't seem to complain.

Stansted is poorly placed to be the main hub airport. I don't like the place but Heathrow is actually very well positioned for a large part of the UK's population. Of course, it's very badly positioned from every other point of view and blights the lives of millions of people, so expanding it is nevertheless a bad idea.

Unfortunately, the ship has sailed. Frankfurt and Paris have better facilities and will continue to grow while we fight about a sticking plaster solution and the Middle-Eastern airlines steal all the travel to the East with better service, prices and facilities.

Is it really a problem? Why not let those cities take the hit on our behalf?

Otherwise, we could expand the range of destinations from Heathrow by requiring airlines to use larger planes, e.g. only A380s to the most popular destinations such as New York. It's silly to allow smaller aircraft such as 787s and A350s to use the runway at such a congested airport. This would cut back frequencies a bit (but still as good or better than Frankfurt or Paris) and would free up runway capacity for extra flights to China or wherever we feel is necessary.

And in the end, is using a connecting flight so bad - especially giving Brexit, which is surely a clear direction from the British people to reduce contact with the outside world?

 

[ivanhoe]

And in the end, is using a connecting flight so bad - especially giving Brexit, which is surely a clear direction from the British people to reduce contact with the outside world?

Liam Fox et al would be interested in using that analogy of yours. This is about the 6th different reason why people voted BREXIT that I've heard and the other 5 were a laugh.

 

[anme]

Liam Fox et al would be interested in using that analogy of yours. This is about the 6th different reason why people voted BREXIT that I've heard and the other 5 were a laugh.

This is a discussion for another thread so I won't react again here after this post... but surely Brexit will reduce demand for international travel to and from the UK? I don't mean that people voted to leave the EU to prevent airport expansion (check the voting patterns). I mean they voted to leave the EU because they wanted less contact with the outside world. If not, what's the point? The relevance to this thread is that brexit means there will be less reason for airport expansion. And even ignoring the will of the people, the government has said very clearly that it wants to leave the European single market, which will mean higher trade barriers for years and probably decades to come - maybe forever - meaning again less demand for international travel.

Also my post was not an analogy.

 

[edwin_m]

It is claimed that Brexit will require more travel to our new and more distant replacement trading partners, requiring more of the sort of long-haul flying that happens from Heathrow.

I make no judgment on whether this is likely, possible or simply an attempted justification of expanding Heathrow.

 

[anme]

It is claimed that Brexit will require more travel to our new and more distant replacement trading partners, requiring more of the sort of long-haul flying that happens from Heathrow.

I make no judgment on whether this is likely, possible or simply an attempted justification of expanding Heathrow.

OK so I said I wasn't going to respond further, but this is kind of on topic so I will.

If the UK trades more with far flung trading partners, and less with Europe, we can reduce the number of short haul flights at Heathrow and replace them with long haul flights. Plus long haul flights use larger planes which carry more passengers per runway slot so we won't need extra runways, even with some growth. We may need extra terminal capacity, however.

In fact, we can probably forget about growth. The Gravity Theory of Trade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade) predicts that countries trade more with other nearby countries, and less with places that are far away. This is fairly well accepted by economists and indeed seems like common sense. It suggests it's unlikely we will be able to make up for lost trade with Europe by increasing trade with other countries in the world. So airport expansion is probably just a waste of money at this stage.

 

[northwichcat]

Goldsmith could lose an election twice within a few months. Lady Bracknell would have had something to say about that, and Lady Annabel may have something to say too.

Goldsmith, bigging himself up as usual, says it 'will be a referendum on Heathrow expansion'. Well, yes, if you accept the referendum only applies to Richmond Park residents, in which case, great news, we voted to remain in the EEC!

Well that has happened. Goldsmith might have been anti-Heathrow expansion but then so is Sarah Olney and of course she's part of a pro-EU party, rather than a party divided over the EU.

 

[Busaholic]

Well that has happened. Goldsmith might have been anti-Heathrow expansion but then so is Sarah Olney and of course she's part of a pro-EU party, rather than a party divided over the EU.

I'm very pleased he's lost. If the Greens had stood, it could have been he squeaked home. I'm conflicted about Labour having a candidate, rather than giving the LibDem a boost, but probably glad it was Wolmar, a rather weak choice unlikely to maximise their support.