[Closed] Apparently it's Heathrow

Of course not 🙂

Zac Golsmith MP resigns but will run as an an Independant and Tories deciding not to launch a candidate in the Byelection. Hmmm.

I'm sure they're not contesting it as a purely altruistic gesture, and not because it's a ridiculously cynical stunt, where he gets to 'do' principles (a novelty for a tory) stand as an independent, get re-elected, then do as he's told, and vote with the Tories every single time in parliament, apart from about Heathrow.

And they wonder why we all hate them? They must think we've all just fallen out of a ****ing tree

Bloody Londoners hogging everything again. And still they're complaining. 🙄

Is the desicion making process published somewhere for us all to argue over?

People who think it could have been anywhere other than Heathrow don't understand the global airline and aviation industry. It was either Heathrow or nothing. Airlines wouldn't have stood for any other decision and moved their hubs to other airports. Common spence has prevailed and an expanded Heathrow will be a raging success. My only issue is that while they're at it they should be building a fourth runway.

This country is desperate for expansion of our entire infrastructure, roads, rail, runways, housing, everything.

This country is desperate for expansion of our entire infrastructure, roads, rail, runways, housing, everything.

I think you mean a move from over investing in the south east, to a more even spread across the whole UK? The

Let's all sign a petition about something!

Any airport planners in?

That runway looks a chuffing long way from terminals 1-5!

Any airport planners in?

That runway looks a chuffing long way from terminals 1-5!

That's why they're building a new terminal to go with it.

So the terminals can now handle the traffic of two runways, but the third runway is going to take some traffic from them? So they are going to be emptier?

Ref airport planners, check out a Schiphol map. Runway 6 or whatever it is is nearly in Rotterdam! Crazy Dutch barstads.

So the terminals can now handle the traffic of two runways, but the third runway is going to take some traffic from them? So they are going to be emptier?

From my understanding of it the new terminal will be for domestic flights and the existing terminals will be for international flights.
Terminal 1 is due to be starting to get pulled down at the end of this year and at some point terminal 2 will be getting extended.
I'd imagine that the domestic flights which mover from T5 and T2 to the new terminal will be replaced by more international flights.

wow, I knew Zac the racist wasnt exactly overflowing with either principles or spunk but, man what a damp squib

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/25/zac-goldsmith-hates-the-third-runway-so-why-was-his-commons-prot/

May strategically left the room (Johnson & Greening also mysteriously absent)

aaaaaaand Goldsmith bottled it and resigned a bit later on the quiet but will stand as an indie ....... yeah something smells fishy, May has either offered him a deal of some sort or he knows itll get stuck in legal limbo forever

either way Grayling still managed to fluff the announcement with erm, no one actually opposing him 😳

Runway 6 or whatever it is is nearly in Rotterdam! Crazy Dutch barstads.

That's why I spent 15 minutes taxiing after a 1hr15 flight...

Runway 6 or whatever it is is nearly in Rotterdam! Crazy Dutch barstads.

Frankfurt's 3rd and 4th runways are a bit of a taxi too.

[quote=binners ]I'm sure they're not contesting it as a purely altruistic gesture

They're not contesting it because that would split the vote and pretty much guarantee the Lib Dems winning the seat. As it is there's a good chance of that anyway.

So the terminals can now handle the traffic of two runways, but the third runway is going to take some traffic from them? So they are going to be emptier?

Melbournes (2 intersecting) so effective 1 runway has issues around weather and other stuff - a jet dropped some engine parts, we were lucky that we could circle for 30mins others had to land at another airport and refuel before the 15min flight back. Then in bad weather they can cause huge delays by increasing spacing which lasts all day.

The last time we were consulted, apart from all the guff about it being the only way to retain any jobs at all in the whole of west London, the 3rdrunway will be for smaller planes. At the moment the spacing between big and small planes (to stop them from falling out of the sky) was felt to be inefficient and so apart from adding resilience the 3rd runway would increase capacity.
Their reduction in pollution claims are quite clearly, completely ludicrous.

Their reduction in pollution claims are quite clearly, completely ludicrous.

I've not seen the claims, but I have sat in a plane circling over London for half an hour - if it helps to reduce that then there has to be a benefit.

let's be honest, by the time it's built, and in use, a third runway will not mean that the same number of planes have 50% more runway space.

it'll mean there's 50% more planes.

i.e. 50% more pollution.

They're not contesting it because that would split the vote and pretty much guarantee the Lib Dems winning the seat. As it is there's a good chance of that anyway.

its going to be very interesting to see how much of the vote they take. Seems a lot of moderate Tory voters are also pretty horrified with this new UKIP clone party in power. Its not what they voted for. Looks like Theresa realises this.

^^ lets hope so because

"die Führerin"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37773052
Its fairly obvious Grayling doesn't have clue. "Less disruption... hahahaha. That part of the M25 is already a total nightmare. And "a gentle hill up which the planes would take off..." HAHAHAHA what about landing.? "a gentle hill down which they would land on"? If he was a football manager the crowd would be chanting "you don't know what you're doing...."

Seems a lot of moderate Tory voters are also pretty horrified with this new UKIP clone party in power. It

Manifesto commitment to end ECHR jurisdiction, to control immigration, to hold EU Referendum ? That's exactly what they voted for and got.

By-election is a Goldsmith Vanity project and a waste of tax payers money (as noted by Jess Phillips). Totally pointless.

@gavin planes take off and land in same direction - into the wind. So both uphill in your example, no ?

Not forgetting the manifesto commitment to stay in the single market, jamba. Though of course you know that it's impossible to get everything you want in our democracy and many of those voting in the current government simply didn't want Ed in charge with Nicola pulling his strings.

I'm not sure the by-election is totally pointless - it gives the voters a chance to give the government a kicking, as I'm sure they'll see Goldsmith as a proxy for the government still. Of course it's likely he'll try and fight it on a single issue, but then I presume the Lib Dems aren't strongly in favour of the extra runway and can easily put up a candidate also standing on the ticket of opposing it, hence moving it to other ground.

[quote=jambalaya ]@gavin planes take off and land in same direction - into the wind. So both uphill in your example, no ?

Well it depends which direction the wind happens to be blowing in - it's not always going to be an uphill landing.

[img] [/img]

A runway raised 8m above existing ground level will have some interesting noise pollution issues in the surrounding area - probably up to about 5 or 6 miles away. Or what happens with a bad landing, one where the plane comes in hot and can't stop before the end of the runway, or veers off the line?
I really don't think they've thought this through.

jambalaya - Member
@gavin planes take off and land in same direction - into the wind. So both uphill in your example, no ?

Are you Chris Grayling by any chance?
Neither of you seem to have no idea about how airports work!

Well I think what happens is that the planes fly. Into the wind as far as able. Well whenever I drive past Heathrow they normally are landing but sometimes taking off which would seem to support that theory. I'm no airport designer but fundamentally a runway is used in boh directions. Anyway, my previous post about builders in the south pasted this link

I think it reminds me of the third runway too.

it'll mean there's 50% more planes.

i.e. 50% more pollution.

Yes but also 50% more passengers, 50% more sets of airport taxes, 50% more chances for people to get here from wherever - I think this is what a lot of people have their eye on.

There's a lot of discussion about ground capacity in the south East which is good. Expansion was always going to happen.

I'm looking forward to how they're going to redesign the airspace above the south East to cope with the increased levels of traffic. At the moment, its already complex and overcrowded. Unlike ground space, where you can bulldoze a village or two for more room, the sky is finite.

It also means 50% more taxis on the M4 ! 😯

That part of the M25/west london/slough/M4 is already a traffic nightmare, now its gonna have a million more cars runway + flyingover the m4 flyover which is already over the A4.

JG Ballard must be loving it

JG Ballard? Oh, dystpian fiction..

molgrips - Member
JG Ballard?

Crash (the novel) was set in the M25/M4 corrridor, as you cruise (in stationary traffic) over the crumbling M4 flyover into London, chugging pollution onto the streets of Hounslow and Brentford below, you are now greeted by the shiny elevated dispaly showrooms of mercedes, audi, kia?!
[img] [/img]

It really is the home of auto-erotica!

Actually runway expansion at Heathrow will mean less pollution than the alternative options of expanding other airports. Despite the additional capacity airlines will still choose to operate bigger, larger capacity aircraft in and out of the airport so fewer but larger aircraft that are far more efficient and less polluting than more smaller aircraft. Also with airlines operating out of fewer 'mega hubs' rather than splitting their fleets and operations across several airports will mean far more efficient infrastructure for getting passengers to and from the airport, which is far more polluting and environmentally unfriendly by an order of magnitude or two than the actual operation of the aircraft themselves.

Also with airlines operating out of fewer 'mega hubs' rather than splitting their fleets and operations across several airports will mean far more efficient infrastructure for getting passengers to and from the airport, which is far more polluting and environmentally unfriendly by an order of magnitude or two than the actual operation of the aircraft themselves.

So how about decent rail links for Heathrow then? Like I dunno, a new railway line linking it and Paddington all across London..? But of course, such a thing would be terrible and useless, if you listen to Northerners 🙂

EDIT just checked the map - Crossrail is going to be even more useful than I thought! Straight into the City from the West.

HS2 will serve Heathrow.

Got an email from Heathrow this morning. Not sure of this has been posted before but here is a link to their pro-expansion website with details of what happens next.

Taking Britain Further

https://your.heathrow.com/takingbritainfurther/?CMP=CRM412201410

Its not a problem landing aircraft on a slope up north (Leeds Bradford Airport), so why would it be down south?

[img] [/img]

I wonder to what extent this is being used as post-Brexit economic stimulus?

molgrips - Member
I wonder to what extent this is being used as post-Brexit economic stimulus

absolutely
heathrow, hinkley, HS2 all absolutely essential now, lack of foreign investors in the UK post brexit, means itll have to be taxpayer funded stimulus
however
Squaring this with our construction skills gap; from brickies to surveyors, that is already hindering growth (shortage leading to 6% wage rise in construction dragging up the 2% average)

and Mays push to reduce immigration will be nigh on impossible

absolutely
heathrow, hinkley, HS2 all absolutely essential now, lack of foreign investors in the UK post brexit, means itll have to be taxpayer funded stimulus

Make you minds up. Its not long ago that people were attacking the government for using foreign investors to "subsidise" UK infrastructure (merci mes amis) and now they are being criticised for gov infrastructure. What do people want?