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

[Wolfie]

Heathrow third runway blocked by Court of Appeal - Government approval ruled illegal...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/heathrow-airport-expansion-court-ruling-a4372991.html

 

[Aictos]

Heathrow third runway blocked by Court of Appeal - Government approval ruled illegal...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/heathrow-airport-expansion-court-ruling-a4372991.html

Damn NIMBYs again, the go ahead should have given years ago with the third runway long been in use since!

 

[Wolfie]

Damn NIMBYs again, the go ahead should have given years ago with the third runway long been in use since!

As someone who lives in North London and is regularly impacted by Heathrow flight operations l am glad that it didn't happen years ago, glad that the Court of Appeal saw sense over its complete inability to meet pollution obligations, and ideally want it closed down - it is clearly in the wrong place.
It's fascinating how many of those people in favour of Heathrow expansion live nowhere near London....

 

[camflyer]

As someone who lives in North London and is regularly impacted by Heathrow flight operations l am glad that it didn't happen years ago, glad that the Court of Appeal saw sense over its complete inability to meet pollution obligations, and ideally want it closed down - it is clearly in the wrong place.
It's fascinating how many of those people in ,sofavour of Heathrow expansion live nowhere near London....

Do people who live in the area actually want it closed down? It provides over 100,000 jobs directly and.many more in the local supply chain.

 

[Aictos]

As someone who lives in North London and is regularly impacted by Heathrow flight operations l am glad that it didn't happen years ago, glad that the Court of Appeal saw sense over its complete inability to meet pollution obligations, and ideally want it closed down - it is clearly in the wrong place.
It's fascinating how many of those people in favour of Heathrow expansion live nowhere near London....

Closing Heathrow in favour for Boris Airport was also in the wrong place, Heathrow is a major employer and thus decision is bad for the local economy.

Yes the airport is nowhere near me but I understand it’s needed as part of National Infrastructure Improvements for the country as a whole in much the same way that HS2 doesn’t benefit me but I see it as essential for the country.

Heathrow already does a lot to combat noise pollution in any case, I just hope the Govt can get this illogical ruling overturned.

 

[Ianno87]

Damn NIMBYs again, the go ahead should have given years ago with the third runway long been in use since!

I don't think this is NIMBY-ism. The decision on Heathrow will have huge environmental consequences for generations. I needs to be done in accordance with the law on this matter.

 

[Howardh]

Damn NIMBYs again

Nothing to do with them, it's an environmental issue.

The government aren't appealing, so what happens next? Third runway at Gatwick (same environmental issues less the need for stacking)? Or if there's over-capacity then price pax off planes to reduce flights (and an improved Eurostar to more destinations as compensation?)?

 

[Aictos]

Well one decision would to make more use of other airports such as Luton, Stansted, Birmingham etc but Heathrow is full hence the need for a third runway.

 

[Ianno87]

Nothing to do with them, it's an environmental issue.

The government aren't appealing, so what happens next? Third runway at Gatwick (same environmental issues less the need for stacking)? Or if there's over-capacity then price pax off planes to reduce flights (and an improved Eurostar to more destinations as compensation?)?

I've always thought that folks living under flight paths might actually benefit from an expanded Heathrow, due to more spreading of flights across 3 runways.

 

[Ianno87]

Well one decision would to make more use of other airports such as Luton, Stansted, Birmingham etc but Heathrow is full hence the need for a third runway.

We *could* have policy that encourages other airports to fill up.

*But* that would be at the cost of making Heathrow a 'Super Hub' to compete globally with the likes of Frankfurt, Schiphol, the Middle Eastern hubs, etc.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

I don't argue that the A23 or Brighton Main Line should be shut because they run within a couple of hundred yards of my house, annoying though they can be at times...

It would only be a second runway at Gatwick; there is currently only one main one although there is a second that can be pressed into service when the main one is shut, but not otherwise. I believe that Gatwick is the busiest single-runway airport in the world, a rather dubious claim to fame.

 

[edwin_m]

[From the other thread, but more appropriate to this one]

I would have thought somewhere like Stansted, although not perfect, would arguably be far more suitable if much better transport connections there were built. Close enough to London to only be a short train-ride away on a dedicated rail link, but far enough away that flights taking off and landing aren't destroying air quality right in the middle of where a few million people live.

That's the sort of logic that led to the Cublington proposal in the 1960s. North-west of London so the flight path missed the city, but unlike Stansted in the direction of the centre of gravity of the population. Also one of the least populated areas that close to London (so much so that the Great Central and HS2 are nearby).

Of course it foundered in the face of strong opposition from the locals. It's difficult to see how any new airport could be set up short of invoking wartime powers (as they did for Heathrow, knowing full well that it was for a new civil airport once the war ended). ​

 

[158756]

We *could* have policy that encourages other airports to fill up.

*But* that would be at the cost of making Heathrow a 'Super Hub' to compete globally with the likes of Frankfurt, Schiphol, the Middle Eastern hubs, etc.

Heathrow already handles more passengers than Frankfurt, Schipol and all but one Middle Eastern airport. To say it needs to expand 50% to compete means you expect huge growth in air travel over the next few decades, which is totally at odds with all the government's environmental commitments.

How much benefit would the UK derive from this competition anyway? Most connecting passengers never leave the airport. If the choice is between more flights at Heathrow and more flights elsewhere, the main beneficiaries of the Heathrow option are BA and HAL, both private companies in foreign ownership. If they can pay for it and get it through all the legal hurdles fine, but it isn't the government's business.

 

[Sceptre]

Closing Heathrow in favour for Boris Airport was also in the wrong place, Heathrow is a major employer and thus decision is bad for the local economy.

For some reason, Boris Johnson really likes vanity projects to be near tons of unexplored WW2 ordnance: first Boris Island, then the Irish Sea Bridge.

One wonders if there’s still some bombs under the waters of the Thames near the Embankment.

 

[Bald Rick]

Luton expansion with a new terminal is on the cards, to make better use of the runway. Add in more expansion at Birmingham with HS2 connections, and you can just about cover the passenger growth forecast at Heathrow.

Stansted is always going to struggle to become a major airport due to its location. Same would apply to Boris Island.

 

[edwin_m]

How much benefit would the UK derive from this competition anyway? Most connecting passengers never leave the airport.

The idea of a "hub airport" is that all those connecting passengers mean it can support more flights than it otherwise would, so passengers to/from its landside catchment have a wider range of flights to choose from.

However I have my doubts about whether that idea justifies Heathrow expansion. Being towards the western edge of Europe, Heathrow was and still is well located to act as a hub distributing transatlantic passengers across the continent. But that's now a mature market with little growth. If Brexit reduces travel between the UK and Europe, including making it more difficult for EU citizens to transit via the UK, then we might see Dublin, Schipol or CdG taking more of this role.

The growing markets are to the east, and flying from central Europe to Heathrow only to backtrack towards Asia takes longer and creates more emissions than going via a hub such as Dubai that's close to the line a direct flight would take. Besides which the success of the Dreamliner and the relative failure of the A380 shows that the hub and spoke model of aviation is losing ground to the point-to-point model.

 

[Wolfie]

Closing Heathrow in favour for Boris Airport was also in the wrong place, Heathrow is a major employer and thus decision is bad for the local economy.

Yes the airport is nowhere near me but I understand it’s needed as part of National Infrastructure Improvements for the country as a whole in much the same way that HS2 doesn’t benefit me but I see it as essential for the country.

Heathrow already does a lot to combat noise pollution in any case, I just hope the Govt can get this illogical ruling overturned.

I think Boris Island was a (highly impractical) interesting idea. That doesn't mean that l accept Heathrow as here to stay and indeed get bigger. Most of the arguments you use could equally have been used in Paris, Amsterdam or Hong Kong when they built new main airports.

 

[Wolfie]

For some reason, Boris Johnson really likes vanity projects to be near tons of unexplored WW2 ordnance: first Boris Island, then the Irish Sea Bridge.

One wonders if there’s still some bombs under the waters of the Thames near the Embankment.

There are.

www.standard.co.uk/news/london/canadian-navy-chief-reveals-dramatic-details-of-how-huge-ww2-bomb-found-in-thames-was-detonated-a3466011.html%3famp

 

[Wolfie]

Do people who live in the area actually want it closed down? It provides over 100,000 jobs directly and.many more in the local supply chain.

Those close to it? Perhaps not. Across London? Almost certainly yes.

 

[AM9]

Any delay in building new airport capacity is worthwhile as additional capacity just increases traffic, - not unlike motorways. It's also true for new railways but they don't bring the same environmental damage with them (neither local nor global), arguably they reduce traffic on the other two modes.

 

[Rick1984]

I think spreading the load around the country makes sense.
Especially make more use of Manchester and one of Glasgow or Edinburgh. Whichever more easier to develop

 

[Wolfie]

I think spreading the load around the country makes sense.
Especially make more use of Manchester and one of Glasgow or Edinburgh. Whichever more easier to develop

Unlikely, based on what you see in the rest of Europe where most countries have only one major hub, to happen. Airlines are more likely to route via other major hubs.

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't think this is NIMBY-ism. The decision on Heathrow will have huge environmental consequences for generations. I needs to be done in accordance with the law on this matter.

Quite! I don't think it's NIMBY-ism to ask that the Government obey the law!!

 

[Wolfie]

Quite! I don't think it's NIMBY-ism to ask that the Government obey the law!!

The alternative is called dictatorship...

 

[td97]

13% of capacity in terms of the additional 222000 movements per year which would be provided by the third runway could come from a modal shift post-HS2, from domestic flights to high speed rail (exl. NI/IoM/Inverness/Channel Islands etc.).
Perhaps even more than 13%, when you consider an A320 on a domestic route with ~170 seats being replaced with an A350 on a medium/long-haul route with ~350 seats. So at face value, 25% of the future international capacity can be procured at virtually no expense to LHR, save for small-scale infrastructure required to accommodate larger planes, if the integration between HS2 and LHR is done right.
A very good decision today by the courts.

 

[Harpers Tate]

As someone who lives closer to Manchester than to any London airport, when travelling scheduled/long haul I prefer to fly from Manchester, of course. Now, if I choose our "National Flag Carrier" (BA) they will always fly me to London first and then onwards. So doing represents (on a round trip) four wholly unnecessary passenger movements at (say) Heathrow, per person, per trip.

Without any statistics whatsoever to back this - I wonder how many people are, in fact, in as easy, or easier, reach of MAN than LHR and who therefore contribute (to the extent of 4 x movements) to the capacity issues at LHR every time they are so routed. And to what extent greater use of provincial potential hubs like MAN for direct flights would in fact reduce the LHR problem.

 

[camflyer]

I think spreading the load around the country makes sense.
Especially make more use of Manchester and one of Glasgow or Edinburgh. Whichever more easier to develop

You can't expand airports unless airlines and passengers want to use them.

 

[Ianno87]

As someone who lives closer to Manchester than to any London airport, when travelling scheduled/long haul I prefer to fly from Manchester, of course. Now, if I choose our "National Flag Carrier" (BA) they will always fly me to London first and then onwards. So doing represents (on a round trip) four wholly unnecessary passenger movements at (say) Heathrow, per person, per trip.

Without any statistics whatsoever to back this - I wonder how many people are, in fact, in as easy, or easier, reach of MAN than LHR and who therefore contribute (to the extent of 4 x movements) to the capacity issues at LHR every time they are so routed. And to what extent greater use of provincial potential hubs like MAN for direct flights would in fact reduce the LHR problem.

Depends if running the 'shuttles' from the likes of Manchester is more economical than providing its own direct flights? Definitely an opportunity for code-sharing on HS2 services.

Not that BA ever had a particularly extensive long haul network directly from Manchester; in the 1990s (pre- 9/11) I recall was limited to New York JFK (now dominated from Manchester by the US Carriers), Islamabad (now covered by PIA), plus a few European routes (now either Low Cost Carriers or the European legacy airlines like Lufthansa)

 

[Ianno87]

You can't expand airports unless airlines and passengers want to use them.

With some deliberate supporting policy, HS2 might shift the dynamic slightly in this. Manchester Airport will be about as close to Euston in journey time as Heathrow is to King's Cross via the Piccadilly Line at present...

 

[MarkyT]

... the success of the Dreamliner and the relative failure of the A380 shows that the hub and spoke model of aviation is losing ground to the point-to-point model.

I wouldn't call time on hubbing any time soon. I suspect the A380 is simply too big for most routes and was predicated on a climate of continued unrestrained growth that may be simply unsustainable from a business point of view as well as environmentally. In addition to direct services, customers like a choice of departures throughout the day rather than a single flight at a fairly random time that may not be particularly convenient for many individuals which a 'jumbo' size aircraft tends to favour. This is similar to the 'Eurostar problem'; attempting to find international city pairs (or small groups along a line of route in the case of rail) that can support a viable and attractive service frequency for up to 800 travellers a departure.