• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Heathrow third runway decision overturned by Court of Appeal (Update: 16/12/2020 - Heathrow appeal allowed by Supreme Court)

Status
Not open for further replies.

HullRailMan

Member
Joined
8 Oct 2018
Messages
299
Why are we so poor at getting things done in this country? Once again we are being held back by a bunch of eco-loons and the arbitrary declaration of an ‘environmental crisis’. Not building a third runway at Heathrow will have zero impact on global carbon levels. Anything the UK does to reduce carbon is more than dwarfed by China and India etc. What not building the runway will achieve is making the UK less connected and less competitive, stunting economic growth and costing jobs.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Why are we so poor at getting things done in this country? Once again we are being held back by a bunch of eco-loons and the arbitrary declaration of an ‘environmental crisis’. Not building a third runway at Heathrow will have zero impact on global carbon levels. Anything the UK does to reduce carbon is more than dwarfed by China and India etc. What not building the runway will achieve is making the UK less connected and less competitive, stunting economic growth and costing jobs.

Point of order. ‘We’ are not being held back. Heathrow did not have consent to build a third runway, and was a long way from doing so - probably about 5 years at best through the Development Consent Order process (given the likely opposition, and precedent with T5).

Heathrow can still apply for consent in this way. And may well do.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
The Times business leader, which I hope people will tolerate my quoting below, today observes that this judgement was predictable and, more importantly, that the runway expansion scheme has always been ill-conceived and unnecessary.

An opinion with which I agree completely.

I have always felt that airlines and airports telling us that things like "hubs" and "code share" are good for us are telling us huge lies - they do nothing for me and, I sense, many other travellers. No, they say these things because they're good for their bottom lines, they are things which are more profitable for them rather than better for their customers.

I've had the misfortune to use the BA Manchester-Heathrow service too many times, ironically the one time it might have been useful was when I had a meeting in Bedfont Lakes (within walking distance of Heathrow T4) but my employer at the time wouldn't allow me to fly, so I went by train from Manchester instead.

BA cancelled its direct Manchester-New York service about ten years ago, since when I use its competitors who provide direct services to the USA from Manchester.

I disagree with the Gatwick comment, the reason the secondary runway isn’t used at the moment is because it’s too close to the main runway.

Unless he’s suggesting to have one flight take off, wait so many minutes then allow a incoming flight to use the other runway which would drastically impact on the operations and reduce the operating capacity of Gatwick.

And suggesting that Heathrow lifts it’s cap to allow MORE flights when it’s already at over 98% of runway capacity is idiotic.

Personally I don’t think they have a clue on what is possible and what’s needed.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,439
Location
Yorkshire

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
I agree, I'm in support of expanding Heathrow for economic reasons but at the same time I would like to see other airports take more flights for example when the DART at Luton opens it will be faster to fly into Luton and be in Central London then Gatwick or Stansted for example.

Airlines such as Eurowings could move from Heathrow to Luton freeing up their slots to be used by Lufthansa Group Airlines not to mention Flybe etc....
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,845
Location
St Neots
Why are we so poor at getting things done in this country? Once again we are being held back by a bunch of eco-loons and the arbitrary declaration of an ‘environmental crisis’. Not building a third runway at Heathrow will have zero impact on global carbon levels. Anything the UK does to reduce carbon is more than dwarfed by China and India etc. What not building the runway will achieve is making the UK less connected and less competitive, stunting economic growth and costing jobs.

It's not arbitrary.
 

duffield

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2013
Messages
1,308
Location
East Midlands
Why are we so poor at getting things done in this country? Once again we are being held back by a bunch of eco-loons and the arbitrary declaration of an ‘environmental crisis’. Not building a third runway at Heathrow will have zero impact on global carbon levels. Anything the UK does to reduce carbon is more than dwarfed by China and India etc. What not building the runway will achieve is making the UK less connected and less competitive, stunting economic growth and costing jobs.

There are plenty of people opposed to this scheme who are not - as you so pleasantly term them - 'eco-loons'.

For example I oppose it because I think if more capacity is required, Gatwick expansion is is a much saner solution. Does that make me an 'eco-loon'?
 
Joined
21 Oct 2012
Messages
929
Location
Wilmslow
Willie Walsh, CEO IAG (BA, Iberia, Aer Lingus), was interviewed yesterday, and he felt that the third-runway was now 'extremely unlikely' and that other options need to be explored. He's not a neutral observer, of course, and probably would like to boot out domestic and charter flights to accommodate more long-haul operations.

The second runway at Gatwick can be brought into full-time use if it is widened by 12m (so the centre-lines are the requisite distance apart) according to their 2019 plan, so it isn't the mega-construction exercise that is Heathrow. It does seem a far preferable project, although the good folk of Sussex would no doubt be out with their pitchforks.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Airlines such as Eurowings could move from Heathrow to Luton freeing up their slots to be used by Lufthansa Group Airlines not to mention Flybe etc....

I think it’s unlikely that any airlines will move from Heathrow to Luton, although it is possible. What is likely is that the passengers move, and existing airlines at Luton expand accordingly.


The second runway at Gatwick can be brought into full-time use if it is widened by 12m (so the centre-lines are the requisite distance apart) according to their 2019 plan, so it isn't the mega-construction exercise that is Heathrow. It does seem a far preferable project, although the good folk of Sussex would no doubt be out with their pitchforks.

That proposal will happen fairly quickly, albeit it does need planning consent. However it ‘only’ increases air traffic movements by 50,000 a year (from memory). The longer term plan is, of course, for a proper second runway to the south. That would have 5 x the capacity of the half runway proposals.
 

mark-h

Member
Joined
14 Jan 2015
Messages
374
Willie Walsh, CEO IAG (BA, Iberia, Aer Lingus), was interviewed yesterday, and he felt that the third-runway was now 'extremely unlikely' and that other options need to be explored. He's not a neutral observer

A third runway would make more slots available and would result in increased competition for BA/IAG.
 

pitdiver

Member
Joined
22 Jan 2012
Messages
1,071
Location
Nottinghamshire
I agree, I'm in support of expanding Heathrow for economic reasons but at the same time I would like to see other airports take more flights for example when the DART at Luton opens it will be faster to fly into Luton and be in Central London then Gatwick or Stansted for example.

Airlines such as Eurowings could move from Heathrow to Luton freeing up their slots to be used by Lufthansa Group Airlines not to mention Flybe etc....

It's all well and good building the DART at Luton Airport. That will only decrease the time it takes to get there. There cannot be any increase in flights from Luton until the proposed additional terminal is bulit. Which is a long way in the future. The present terminal despite all the so called improvements is still a nightmare to use.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
It's all well and good building the DART at Luton Airport. That will only decrease the time it takes to get there. There cannot be any increase in flights from Luton until the proposed additional terminal is bulit. Which is a long way in the future. The present terminal despite all the so called improvements is still a nightmare to use.

Not so x2.

1) There is plenty of scope for more flights at Luton without the second terminal, it just requires some clever scheduling so that the terminal throughput is smoothed.

2) the terminal is not a nightmare to use. I’ve used it several times recently, departing and arriving, always at busy times. It is a good experience, bordering on excellent. Sometimes it is busy, yes, but never ‘a Nightmare’.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Not so x2.

1) There is plenty of scope for more flights at Luton without the second terminal, it just requires some clever scheduling so that the terminal throughput is smoothed.

2) the terminal is not a nightmare to use. I’ve used it several times recently, departing and arriving, always at busy times. It is a good experience, bordering on excellent. Sometimes it is busy, yes, but never ‘a Nightmare’.
I assume the low-numbered gates (turn left after leaving the lounge) are no more, or at least going soon, as they were pretty awful. Apart from those I'd say it was reasonably tolerable although a little lacking in seating.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I assume the low-numbered gates (turn left after leaving the lounge) are no more, or at least going soon, as they were pretty awful. Apart from those I'd say it was reasonably tolerable although a little lacking in seating.

They are still there, usually for domestic. I used one last week! (Strictly speaking, I used ‘2’ not one ;))
 

pitdiver

Member
Joined
22 Jan 2012
Messages
1,071
Location
Nottinghamshire
Let's agree to disagree regarding the merits of Luton Airport. I live just up the road from it and I am also a regular user. The whole set up leaves a lot to be desired. Let's leave it at that.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
What not building the runway will achieve is making the UK less connected and less competitive, stunting economic growth and costing jobs.

Will it? About a third of Heathrow's passengers are international transfer passengers and so, other than buying an overpriced bottle of water at WH Smith, contribute very little to the UK economy. And they, generally, only transfer through Heathrow because BA price the fares competitively; this is why it's cheaper to fly Dublin-Heathrow-New York than Heathrow-New York. Good for BA, no doubt, but as IAG are Spanish again I'm struggling to see a benefit for the UK. A further runway will reduce BA dominance at Heathrow, of course, but this won't change Heathrow's airlines using it as a transfer hub.

As for "eco-loons", well, it's amazing how anyone who disagrees with anythimng is either a "loon" or a NIMBY.

Me? I think expansion for expansion's sake is pointless, especially as the beneficiaries don't and won't contribute to the UK economy. There is plenty of spare capacity elsewhere in the UK, but airlines (other than Emirates, bizarrely) don't want to use it. There's nothing to suggest that transferring at Heathrow rather than, say, Schiphol, will add any benefit to the UK (indeed the opposite seems to be true- KLM Air France and Emirates do more for regional connectivity than British Airways ever have!)

But even more importantly I think Heathrow is the wrong place for expansion; the final approach over densely populated central London is already a disaster waiting to happen, never mind adding more and more to the mix.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Will it? About a third of Heathrow's passengers are international transfer passengers and so, other than buying an overpriced bottle of water at WH Smith, contribute very little to the UK economy.
I've explained this issue at least twice. The connecting passengers mean there are more flights so domestic passengers get a greater choice of destinations and times. That's the claimed benefit of a "hub" airport compared to an ordinary one with no connecting passengers.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
The connecting passengers mean there are more flights so domestic passengers get a greater choice of destinations and times.

Hmm. London is a major world destination and can sustain a comprehensive route network. If airlines have to price cheaply to encourage passengers to transit then clearly there is too much capacity.

In any case, a 30% capacity increase to sustain a 40% international transit rate shows that the existing capacity more than meets the needs of London.

I've explained this issue at least twice.

Have you, or have you just presented an opinion?

As it stands, from Newcastle I can connect to as many places through Schiphol, Dubai or CDG as I can through Heathrow, with the added bonus of sustaining regular international flights from the airport. A hub outside the UK actually benefits the north east more than Heathrow does.
 

sprunt

Member
Joined
22 Jul 2017
Messages
1,156
Is there potential for Heathrow to lose out to Schiphol for hub traffic after freedom of movement ends, due to the enhanced simplicity of only passing through a single customs border, or the simpler transit requirements if one's origin or destination is in the EU?
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Is there potential for Heathrow to lose out to Schiphol for hub traffic after freedom of movement ends

I wouldn't expect so, as we weren't in the Schengen area so passport checks were required anyway. Most Europeans will still be able to transfer visa-free anyway.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Let's agree to disagree regarding the merits of Luton Airport. I live just up the road from it and I am also a regular user. The whole set up leaves a lot to be desired. Let's leave it at that.

Ok, I too live just up the road and use it regularly!
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Good for BA, no doubt, but as IAG are Spanish again I'm struggling to see a benefit for the UK.

Point of order here - IAG is a multinational company, with a brass plate HQ in Madrid, a Corporate HQ in London, a primary listing on the London Stock Exchange with a secondary listing on the Madrid equivalent, and is owned by shareholders all over the world.

However its subsidary BA is registered in the U.K., and pays U.K. corporation tax. To the tune of £365m for the last year reported on (2018).
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
BBC reporting that Heathrow’s appeal over the third runway decision has been allowed by the Supreme Court. The summary seems to be that the airports strategy met the climate targets in force at the time it was done.

 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
BBC reporting that Heathrow’s appeal over the third runway decision has been allowed by the Supreme Court. The summary seems to be that the airports strategy met the climate targets in force at the time it was done.

So will the fact that it was applied for before the current targets were in force mean that it will have granfather rights without a single space being put in the ground or will the authoority be reasessed on its compatibility of today?
If the extension (and all the resultant local and regional impacts) don't get brought up to 2020 standards, will the progress of the other environmental issue resolved today, (i.e. the Southwark Coroner's court finding that Ella Kissi-Debrah's death was caused by pollution), more details in the link here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55330945
and the consequential forthcoming change to the UK legal position regarding levels of pollution that exceed WHO guidelines, be reflected back into the decision not to prevent the Heathrow expansion?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
So will the fact that it was applied for before the current targets were in force mean that it will have granfather rights without a single space being put in the ground or will the authoority be reasessed on its compatibility of today?
If the extension (and all the resultant local and regional impacts) don't get brought up to 2020 standards, will the progress of the other environmental issue resolved today, (i.e. the Southwark Coroner's court finding that Ella Kissi-Debrah's death was caused by pollution), see here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55330945
and the resulting forthcoming change to the UK legal position regarding levels of pollution that exceed WHO guidelines, be reflected back into the decision not to prevent the Heathrow expansion?
Pass. I’m not in a position to answer, but I guess you’re asking everyone...
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
Pass. I’m not in a position to answer, but I guess you’re asking everyone...
Yes I was, that's because your post was the first and only one since the Supreme Court's decision news. I suspect that there isn't a direct answer (yet) but the Southwark finding changes the whole question of the state's liabilty for pollution levels, - at last!
 

camflyer

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2018
Messages
876
Whatever the legal case, it looks like the current economics will push back any third runway into the long grass. There is an argument that these quiet times are exactly when we should be investing in new infrastructure so that the capacity is there for when the demand returns but the bean counters always win.

Similarly, it looks like the Western Rail Link has also been pushed back by a few years despite there being virtually no opposition to the scheme.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top