[Closed] Do we really need more airport capacity?

an artificial limit/restriction will raise prices, that'll be popular...

Making people pay the true cost of travel would raise prices and restrict capacity. It's going to be the case on the roads, on the tracks and in the air...

No bad thing if you believe that air travel is a major contributor to AGW. Air travel was more expensive in the past so why should we expect it to remain cheap into the forseeable future? Especially given the contraints on fossil fuel production likely to happen in the medium term.

It's just a piece of UK PLCs infrastructure jigsaw. More is better.

If you remove the things that distort the market, like no VAT on fuel, who gets to fly where etc etc then perhaps we will know the answer.

However, I would think we dont need more, we need better capacity, more regionalised with better links.

...Air travel was more expensive in the past so why should we expect it to remain cheap into the forseeable future? Especially given the contraints on fossil fuel production likely to happen in the medium term.

then that'll be a restriction that the whole world faces - which is fair.

an artificial limit, when we're facing natural limits, seems unnecessary.

The capacity that they're seeking is of limited to no benefit to the UK - the economic analysis supporting a new runway makes the assumption that more flights = more people visiting Britain, however the reality of the situation is simply an increase in the number of transfers taking place there. Capacity can be freed by encouraging greater use as a destination airport rather than a stop off/tranfer point (which Amsterdam/Paris etc. provide for more than adequately).

After the arguments are out of the way, it's the business/elite who run the companies chasing contracts that are lobbying for this sort of thing - it really won't affect the majority of people. Politicians at all levels are just obsessed with 'big projects', I strongly suspect that this is often easily attributable to them being men of a certain age....

How much more? When the whole of the UK is one giant airport? Obviously there are limits to growth, and why not declare the limit now, rather than do as some tories urge and spend more of our supposedly scarce money on further expansion? Don't forget that having such large transport nodes generate more journeys to and from the nodes. Imagine the effect on the region around the airport of all those people sloshing around.

We seem to be building a living hell one brick and road and runway at a time, but for some, the rush to hyper-gridlock isn't quick enough for their special interests. Like the drunken toffs splurging money at the races they want more. WUUUUURGH! Put another runway there! HOOORAY! Another terminal! WHOOOOEERRRR! We'll burp! need increased capacity to serve all this...

i'm going to guess that you live in the south-east...

i suppose it's hardly surprising that the people with the strongest feelings about this are those that will have to live with even more noise, and even less space.

i find it annoying that if i want to fly further than Malaga, i'll probably have to get to London first, more international flights from Manchester would suit me, but not those that live near the airport...

You'd be right. But why should any region of the UK have to suffer increased air travel?

We are a small island that is reliant upon the movement of people and goods. If we re to remain anywhere close to where we are now in the global pecking order, we need to improve air travel.

ahwiles - that's another part of it. They're definitely looking at the wrong airports too. Yet another Nu-Labour broken promise - re-vitalise the regions and undo the excessive emphasis/concentration of business and resources on London and the SE.

The current lack of Take-off slots distorts the market and raises prices for all travellers, esp as BA seems to own the largest trunk (most of which were inherited) eg constraining how much Virgin can compete. More runways = more slots = more competition = lower prices.

Given there is a market for more capacity, to not supply it just moves the demand elsewhere i.e. another country benefits rather than the UK.

Or improve communications. With the internet how many of those 'essential' business trips are really necessary? Do we really need to fly to Prague for a stag or hen night?

An extra runway does not necessarily equal more capacity. Capacity is limited by other factors, including controller workload. All those purported extra flights need to be fitted into already congested airspace in a way that the ATC chaps deem to be acceptable and safe, and that's by no means an easy thing to accomplish as the controllers have a very powerful voice (through GATCO).

Plus there are other knock on factors - Heathrow and Gatwick effectively regulate the flow from Luton & Stansted so increasing traffic at Heathrow could limit the capacity of other airports. So it's not as simple as 'more tarmac = more planes', no matter what the pro/anti camps might tell you.

You can't substitute business travel with teleconferening, it just doesn't work outside the UK/US. In most of the world (Asia, China, Africa, ME), business is conducted on a personal trust basis rather than a contractual basis, so meeting people in person is essential. Most of our contracts (all several $m) have no formal contracts in place at all (as they are largely unenforceable in those regions), it's all done on trust and trust means lots of meetings, drinks, meals, etc. The Anglo-Saxon concept of business is very parochial and the more you travel, the more you realise how unusual it is.

The Anglo-Saxon concept of business is very parochial and the more you travel, the more you realise how unusual it is.

Very true.

For me, one key thing would be to reduce the amount of short haul done by plane. For example, if I need to go from London to Manchester, flying is often the cheapest option! That's ridiculous, and unsustainable, IMO.

By contrast, for Paris, I always take the train. About the same sort of cost, and very convenient.

I get the idea of having a transfer airport, but why at Heathrow. Stansted would be perfect with increased capacity of the A14, alternatively a more northern airport.

I sit firmly in the camp that supports freadom of movement and the rights to freadom of movement.

If that means the market can stand more Airports and people use them, then Yes.. we need more Airports.

Do we need cleaner and more efficient Aircraft, Yes, yes we do.

Would you want your house to be demolished to make way for, or your neighbourhood blighted by an airport?

I ask again, when is enough?

I'm not very convinced that Flying is any less sustainable than trains / high speed trains. If you take into account loading on routes and capitated co2 levels, flying is often more efficient than other forms of long distance transport, more so when you take into account the volume of concrete / electricity required for high speed rail.

But have you considered the transport to the airport? No doubt a compelling economic case can be made for building more airports, roads, high-speed rail, ports, and vast tracts of shoddy housing, but where is quality of life considered?

It may be interesting to re-read this thread when we leave the world to our *grandchildren. Who will probably tell us we were twits for allowing unhindered plundering of fossil fuels and no regard of the future. All for short term political / financial gain.

* I have no offspring, so will continue to use up scares resources in persuit of short term fun.

but where is quality of life considered?

<devils advocate>
What, quality of life from being able to travel to new places, quality of life from being able to buy products sourced from overseas, quality of life from employment being sustained within an area. Yep they should definitely consider that.
</devils advocate>

Quality of life measured in peace and calm? Quality of life in not feeling as if you are enmeshed in the gears of a giant machine?

ohnohesback - Member
...but where is quality of life considered?

At the ballot box?

One of the interesting things about yesterday's faux-debate on Heathrow was the fact that rather than being cross-party, it was cross constituency. Hence the likes of Greening (Putney flight path) remaining opposed whereas others representing other (non flight path) constituencies (and other interests!) are vocally more in favour.

An All Party Parliamentary Group has concluded that the restriction of capacity at Heatheor is harming the UK's economic potential - so would be interesting to read the analysis in full. In the meantime, it would seem to me that we need improvements [u]in existing[/u] airport infrastructure (eg, T1-4 at H'row), better co-ordination between airports/different transport links, and probably more capacity. But should this be at Heathrow? Not so sure about that especially in respect to the co-ordination issue.

ohnohesback - I doubt anyone will (be able to) give you an accurate and definitive answer to exactly, "when is enough". Like time, roads, etc, I would expect aircraft to fill the capacity available!

I sit firmly in the camp that supports freadom of movement and the rights to freadom of movement

Me to, but only up to the point where it doesn't impact negatively on others. To that end travelling by air is very selfish and irresponsible (considering the current prices we pay). Travelling by road is probably less so (per person), train is probably less still. Ultimately though the only true freedom of movement and rights to that freedom that we [u]should[/u] have is by foot. Unfortunately we've been sold a lie for decades that freedom of movement = the right to fly/drive where we want, when we want. Which is pretty selfish for those who have to suffer the consequences be it locally, regionally, nationally or globally.

We need a far better integrated transport system.

Until we have that, the comparisons with Schipol etc will be somewehre between tragic and hilarious...

All of the London airports are a nightmare to get to - and the regional airports (in the main) don't offer a credible alternative.

If Heathrow were to get another runway, should it be used mainly for domestic flights? LHR could then truly be a UK hub for the regional airports to connect in to. At the moment the landing slots are too few and valuable to make this viable. If I fly from Cardiff, I'm better off using Scipol as a hub - otherwise it is drive / train / bus from Wales to London 👿

I like the "idea" of the Thames estuary airport - ie a fully inter-connected hub, linked to all other transport modes... but it's the wrong side of London for almost everyone. One of the old central England USAF bases would have been better placed as a "UK hub". Upper Heyford, for example, is right next to the M40 and an existing rail line...

[i]I say no we don't.[/i]

Based on what, a finger in the wind?

What we need is a new airport, built from scratch with good/fast transport (across the UK). Somewhere between Brum and London would work well - plenty of open land and handy for millions, plus easy to connect to from most of the UK.

It's incredibly disappointing that it's so difficult/expensive to get to Heathrow without flying from a regional airport. It's almost like they built London in the way. Same thing for getting trains to the continent. Nobody in their right mind wants to connect through the capital.

We could make better use of the capacity we currently have by replacing most domestic flights with train travel. E.g. Edinburgh-London is 4h30m by train, and it takes you right into the centre. Then we could use the landing slots for international flights. Of course that would require a [s]flying pig[/s] integrated transport policy and sensible pricing. Maybe we're all doomed.

We could make better use of the capacity we currently have by replacing most domestic flights with train travel. E.g. Edinburgh-London is 4h30m by train, and it takes you right into the centre. Then we could use the landing slots for international flights. Of course that would require a flying pig integrated transport policy and sensible pricing. Maybe we're all doomed

I both agree and disagree...

As posted above - I think LHR needs MORE domestic landing slots. It CANNOT act as a well functioning hub without this (and direct high speed / mainline rail straight to the terminals). For international flights, I want the (reasonably priced) option of checking in at (say)Cardiff and getting off at wherever I am going

For travel to London (as a destination) then I agree - train is better

Yes we need more capacity

More transfers means more revenue for the airlines and the airports, good for business for employment and for tax revenue. More transfers are benificial.

I think Borris Island is just a vanity project and an attempt to put lots of money into the developers pockets. IMO the regional airports should be expanded to encourage people to fly from those and avoid driving down to London and to encourage regional bussiness development

@sas, it takes me 40 mins to get to LHR and 2 hours to Kings Cross from home, so get to Edinburgh via train is really slow and it's very very expensive.

The Economic case is sound, its just not made very well in the media. Heathrow is at 100% capacity at the moment.

Of course, its an environmental disaster in terms of noise and emissions. Laws restricting emissions or taxing fuel for air travel need to be applied world wide, otherwise its pointless. Thats why most charges so far are airport taxes.

Perhaps we need to move away from the "hub and spoke" model, in fact isn't that what Boeing are betting on with the 787?

Of course, its an environmental disaster in terms of noise and emissions. Laws restricting emissions or taxing fuel for air travel need to be applied world wide, otherwise its pointless. Thats why most charges so far are airport taxes.

Compared to what? The noise regs are far tighter than they used to be, engines are slowly being refined and burning better, higher cost of fuel is driving airlines towards more efficient practices. It isn't an environmental disaster - it isn't great, but it isn't a disaster.

@jambalaya
I should have made it clearer that I meant we should invest in rail connections to our major airports (as well as between cities), to replace most domestic flight transfers. For example crossrail sounds like it might speed things up, depending on which London terminals it joins up with.

With a bit more thought we could even have integrated train-plane systems, where you check-in at the train station, drop your luggage off and forget about it. I completely agree with you on the ridiculous prices though.

Perhaps we need to move away from the "hub and spoke" model, in fact isn't that what Boeing are betting on with the 787?

The 787 model is based heavily on the big carriers flying regular slots - most 'business' travellers (i.e. the ones that pay big bucks for club/first seats want to fly when it's convenient for them - that means smaller planes that fly more than once a day.

The big Airbus A360 concept is more for holiday makers - one slot at the airport and you can shift 500+ passengers in one go. Though maybe only flying once a day to the destination with a slightly inconvenient take off/arrival time.

Boris Island will never work. I know someone 'in the know' and basically the only thing that is going to come out of it is a few companies are going to make millions doing designs/investigations etc. etc. before they admit what is already fairly well know internally - it won't be feasible.

I just wonder how long it will take to build (5 to 10 years?), and what the price and availability of oil will be then.

Tar/oil sand/shale whatever: it's hard work to extract and process, but it's profitable at $100/barrel and there's chuffing loads of it.

we're not going to run out anytime soon.

It will be more expensive to extract and refine those deposits, and can you create avgas from such poor qualty materials? There is an aviation crunch coming, whether we choose to accept the fact or not.

There is an aviation crunch coming, whether we choose to accept the fact or not.

Agreed. Fuel costs is nigh on bankrupting most airlines at the moment.

ohnohesback - I struggle with some of your arguments in this thread. You suggest you are in the south-east, and that people don't want more planes or increases to Heathrow, but have you looked at the needs of the communities local to Heathrow such as Hounslow? The number of people employed either directly by the airlines, the airport or supporting companies is phenomenal, and you probably won't find their MPs voting against the idea unlike the ones in Putney/Richmond where it 'might' spoil their after electorate's afternoon in the garden sipping G&Ts.

The UK does need effective air travel with increased volumes, and currently extensions to the capacity at Heathrow or Gatwick are the two best options to ensure people can get in and out of the UK, and that the government receives a considerable amount of income in taxes. Luton could work as a physical location, but would need considerable investment to surrounding infrastructure, and to the airport itself to offer major volume increases; Stansted is not particularly easy for most people to get to based on populace (not all, I realise) and a Thames Estuary solution is pie-in-the-sky fantasy. No one would be able to get to it given they would have to go via central London, which already has transport issues. Specifically, have you tried taking luggage/bicycles etc on the train or tube systems when it's busy?

If you take a flight into London and come in over Kent/Sussex or Essex, would you really say it is overcrowded with roads and other aeroplanes? The noise output per plane has dropped considerably in the last 15 years, and their efficiency has increased too, making them better, if not great for the environment. However, people need and want to move around and to restrict travel based on current levels seems a little backward.

Trains could reduce some of the need for regional air transport, but they need to find improved ways to connect areas of the country allowing people to miss out major radial hubs such as London, and building new rail lines doesn't seem as likely as increases to the road network.

The world has become considerably 'smaller' in the last 60 years through air transport, and changing people's mindsets back to only living and working in one area, and trading their products and services in areas they can easily reach is not going to happen.

The world has become considerably 'smaller' in the last 60 years through air transport, and changing people's mindsets back to only living and working in one area, and trading their products and services in areas they can easily reach is not going to happen.

It's going to have to happen, sooner or later, the way things are going our current transport choices are too cheap and too easy. I suppose the driver will be cost and capacity this will start with freight and food, but it won't be long before people are restricted too. None of what we're doing at the moment is sustainable financially, environmentally or socially. It's time we faced up to this.

What Peyote said. Plus the UK will be importing increasing ammounts of crude at world prices (driven by new demand in the East) with a declining economy struggling to pay for it.

[b]None[/b] of what we're doing at the moment is sustainable financially, environmentally or socially. It's time we faced up to this.

None of what we're doing with regard to what, exactly?

The whole transport system by which we live our lives, from local motorised journeys (50% of which are under 5 miles, 30% under 3!!!), all the way to shipping strawberries from Ghana so that we can have Eton mess for pudding in February!

Cheap flights, cheap fuel, cheap parking, cheap foreign imported goods, cheap holidays in far flung places. It's all completely unsustainable and founded on a temporary capital ideal. Sooner or later the third world will catch up with the first world and we'll be stuffed because we can't get away with cheap labour and cheap natural resources anymore (assuming any form of energy crisis doesn't hit before that tipping point). It makes more sense to start to think now about getting as much as we can locally, with minimal transport involved.

Edited to add - I suppose the engineers could sort out some of the problems we face, but surely a simpler solution is to be found by doing things differently? Maybe I just don't have enough faith in human ingenuity and technology to sort out the problems!

No bad thing if you believe that air travel is a major contributor to A[s]GW[/s][b]CC[/b]