London Heathrow: Infrastructure, Construction & Developments

[Jerry]

May get some regional air link back to LHR too

I think someone said on the LBA forum that 15% of the slots are to be reserved for domestic flights.

 

[Silvercity]

I think someone said on the LBA forum that 15% of the slots are to be reserved for domestic flights.

ok...well let's hope they stick to it. I know flybe had designs to launch domestic routes.

 

[Land23R]

Is that 15% of the new slots Jerry?
It is of course up to the airlines to decide which routes to LHR would be viable, although no doubt there will be some suitable 'incentives'.

Airports such as LPL, NQY and perhaps DTV or HUY would welcome such routes but how many more flights could be justified for airports that already have decent frequencies e.g. GLA, EDI, MAN? And those last 3 airports would surely be keen to get more of their own direct International services than a couple of extra
shuttles to LHR.

In short, some parts of the UK may well benefit but for other areas, it is much more
questionable. Just my opinion.

And what happens at LGW will be something to watch, especially if easyjet set up a base at LHR. Mind you, with a likely decade before any new runway opens, a lot can happen in the meantime.

 

[aviatorconcorde]

This may get LHR back into the top 3 of busiest airports.

If LHR had had 4 runways by 1980. It would probably be the busiest in the world by now as less traffic would of gone to Gatwick/LCY.

 

[Jerry]

Is that 15% of the new slots Jerry?

I don't know i'm just quoting what was said in the Leeds thread, the BA one i believe but if it is true i'd imagine it would be of the new slots.
If it opens up new services to some of the airports you mentioned then that will be a good thing. As for the likes of GLA, EDI and MAN they don't struggle to attract services now and i honestly don't think they'll struggle if LHR had 3 runways.

As for EZY at Gatwick i'd be surprised if them setting up base at LHR would effect it. Gatwick is and always will be a primarily leisure based and low cost carrier airport, Heathrow getting a 3rd runway won't change that.

In any sort of infrastructure project some parts of the country will benefit and others won't and some will benefit indirectly as well.

 

[Aviador]

The CAA has shortlisted four regulatory options for Heathrow's expansion. Crucially, one model allows an independent third-party developer (like the Arora Group) to build and run assets like a new terminal, competing directly with Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL).

Is this a realistic way to break HAL's monopoly and lower costs, or is a split-operator hub an operational recipe for chaos?

Also in Heathrow Airport news:

The CAA is moving forward with a draft decision on how Heathrow can recover its massive legacy planning costs for the third runway. Airlines are furiously fighting it, refusing to pay for a decade of legal battles and drawings when no ground has been broken.

Should HAL's shareholders swallow the cost as a failed commercial risk, or is it fair to pass infrastructure planning costs onto current airlines and passengers?

 

[Seasider]

The cost should be borne initially by the shareholders and then by airlines and users once it is up and running.

 

[Aviador]

Heathrow has just revealed that the cost of simply preparing and submitting its revised Development Consent Order (DCO) planning application for the third runway is now estimated to hit a staggering £800 million.

Around £400 million was spent before the Grimshaw-designed project was paused in 2020. Because of legal shifts, traffic re-modelling, and environmental impact updates, Heathrow is having to spend that exact same £400 million amount all over again before submitting the plans in 2027/2028.

Planning application for Grimshaw’s Heathrow Airport expansion to cost up to £800m, airport says

Legal fees and environmental impact modelling have seen cost of paperwork almost double since project was paused in 2020

www.bdonline.co.uk

This is purely for legal fees, surveying, and paperwork. Is this a sign of a completely broken UK planning system, or is it a justifiable cost to ensure the country's mega-hub project survives the inevitable judicial reviews?

#HeathrowRunway3
#BrokenBritain
#LHR
#Heathrow

 

[jfy1999]

Heathrow has just revealed that the cost of simply preparing and submitting its revised Development Consent Order (DCO) planning application for the third runway is now estimated to hit a staggering £800 million.

Around £400 million was spent before the Grimshaw-designed project was paused in 2020. Because of legal shifts, traffic re-modelling, and environmental impact updates, Heathrow is having to spend that exact same £400 million amount all over again before submitting the plans in 2027/2028.

Planning application for Grimshaw’s Heathrow Airport expansion to cost up to £800m, airport says

Legal fees and environmental impact modelling have seen cost of paperwork almost double since project was paused in 2020

www.bdonline.co.uk

This is purely for legal fees, surveying, and paperwork. Is this a sign of a completely broken UK planning system, or is it a justifiable cost to ensure the country's mega-hub project survives the inevitable judicial reviews?

#HeathrowRunway3
#BrokenBritain
#LHR
#Heathrow

The planning system resulted in similar issues for HS2. Hundreds of millions being spent before a single spade in the ground. I'm guessing there will also be more legal challenges to the plan.

If it goes the same way as HS2 we’ll end up with a runway that is only 1/3rd complete and over budget by 300 percent!

 

[Aviador]

The sheer amount of cash burnt on the Development Consent Order (DCO) process, judicial reviews, and consultation paperwork before a single cubic metre of tarmac is even poured is staggering. It feels like the UK planning system is actively designed to build consultation industries rather than actual infrastructure.

Maybe we just get a 1,300-metre strip and tell the airlines to practice their short-field landings!

Joking aside, I couldn't agree more about the legal challenges. The moment Heathrow dusts off the DCO plans, the environmental coalitions and local borough councils will have their lawyers lined up at the High Court within minutes. They'll have them drafted in from all over the country.

Do people think the current government will try to streamline the planning laws to force things like this through, or are mega-projects in the UK officially dead in the water now because of the exact cycle you just described?

 

[Aviador]

A major infrastructure bombshell dropped today with the government fast-tracking approval for a massive, power-hungry 107-megawatt AI data centre right on Heathrow’s perimeter fence at Manor Farm.

While the government is celebrating the digital investment, this facility will consume as much electricity as a medium-sized city, creating a massive logistical headache for the airport. With West London’s electrical grid already notoriously strained, dropping a power vampire right on LHR's doorstep threatens to choke off the vital electrical capacity the airport desperately needs to power its own future green upgrades from electric airside ground fleets to hybrid aircraft charging points.

The irony too as when the time comes the green lobby will be setting up camp next to the airport to try to stop runway three.

 

[jfy1999]

Seeing what’s happened in the USA with data centres has made me suspicious of them.

I have heard of data centres and their generators causing a constant background noise that’s unpleasant for people nearby. Yes you could say there are also planes and motorways nearby but vehicle noise tends to subside at night.

Ive also heard of water pollution, and locals losing water pressure in their homes. Thames Water already has a bad track record so can we trust that the data centre won’t cause any water issues for nearby households?

Hopefully our planning laws are stricter than those in the USA.

There are political issues as well with AI being used in government surveillance but I will leave that discussion for another thread.

The effect on the airport is probably going to be increased electricity bills and this is going to have to be passed on to passengers eventually.

 

[Aviador]

Seeing what’s happened in the USA with data centres has made me suspicious of them.

I have heard of data centres and their generators causing a constant background noise that’s unpleasant for people nearby. Yes you could say there are also planes and motorways nearby but vehicle noise tends to subside at night.

Ive also heard of water pollution, and locals losing water pressure in their homes. Thames Water already has a bad track record so can we trust that the data centre won’t cause any water issues for nearby households?

Hopefully our planning laws are stricter than those in the USA.

There are political issues as well with AI being used in government surveillance but I will leave that discussion for another thread.

The effect on the airport is probably going to be increased electricity bills and this is going to have to be passed on to passengers eventually.

Your point on noise is spot on. While planes and the M4 quieten down at night, those massive cooling fans will continue to hum 24/7, destroying the quiet hours for residents in Harmondsworth and Longford. Your skepticism about Thames Water is also entirely justified, as liquid cooling AI chips are said to consume millions of litres of water daily on an already fragile local network. (How is Themes water these days for burst pipes?) Crucially, your point about the financial knock on effect for Heathrow is the real kicker. If grid reinforcement costs skyrocket, could those overheads spiril and be passed onto the airport and rolled into passenger charges?