Heathrow Expansion - News and Debates

[News Guru]

Government 'dithering' on Heathrow expansion

The Government could be accused of "dithering" over the future of Heathrow, a former transport secretary said today.

Tory Lord Mawhinney said a quick decision on whether to go ahead with a third runway was important for the country's economic growth.

The coalition rejected a plan for a third runway accepted by the last Labour government and has put off further decisions until Sir Howard Davies's Airports Commission reports in summer 2015 following the next election.

Full Story: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transpor ... 52692.html

 

[flexo]

The only thing I know for a fact is that if the airport will be expanded it is going to be much more expensive than estimated right now. Have a look at the disastrous Berlin airport which is now twice as expensive than planned..

 

[andrew.clarkson]

And yes the point of the new Berlin teigel airport, which should have been opened already, but for reasons of security & safety of its new fire alarm system still to be approved, i think i heard one aviation person menton if not this year, could be next year or 2015 at the latest, we will have to wait and see...Andy C

 

[News Guru]

Boris Johnson accuses Heathrow of treating public ‘like idiots’

Boris Johnson today accused bosses at Heathrow of treating the public like “absolute idiots” as the row over a third runway mounted.

The Mayor hit out at the airport chiefs for arguing that there is public support for a third runway and possibly a fourth. “Of all the miserable, useless, cynical examples of corporate short-termism and greed, this takes some beating,”

Full Story: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 63443.html

 

[News Guru]

Heathrow's two runways should be extended and then cut in half to add capacity think tank says

Heathrow's two runways should be extended and cut in half to create four full-length take-off and landing strips, according to a report published today.
The move would nearly double capacity at the airport which currently handles 480,000 flights a year but is already 99per cent full, it argues.
The ‘quick, quiet and cost-effective’ solution – including the creation of a sixth terminal called ‘T6’ – would retain the West London airport’s status as the UK’s major air hub while reducing noise and sidestepping opposition to a new third runway.

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news ... z2Ycwv6UNm

 

[lysander]

In an interesting move the Sheffield Star carried a supplement, supported by the local Chambers of Commerce, making the case for expansion!

 

[News Guru]

Heathrow submits third runway plan to Davies Commission

Heathrow Airport has unveiled three options for a new runway, saying each one would be "quicker and cheaper" than plans for a rival hub airport.

The airport's submission to the Davies Commission, which is looking at raising airport capacity, outlined a runway to the north, north-west or south-west of the existing airport.

It said fewer people would be affected by noise than were currently.

But environmentalists criticised proposals for Heathrow expansion.

London Mayor Boris Johnson said thinking Heathrow could be the major hub London needed was "crackers".

Just a year ago, government officials said the idea of a third runway was "dead and buried", but it is now "very much back on the table", said BBC transport correspondent Richard Westcott

Heathrow Airport Proposals PDF

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23337754

 

[Seasider]

With Heathrow at 99% capacity, I have an idea that will free up slots for services to new destinations.
Quite a lot of Heathrow services are multi daily by at least two competing airlines. Not all these flights are full so it is possible to reduce the number of flights on a particular route so releasing slots to serve other destinations. For example, based on Sep 17 2013, there are 19 flights to JFK with Oneworld offering 12 flights (BA-8;AA-4)and SkyTeam 7 (VS-$;DL-3). One or two flights could be withdrawn, hence freeing up slots.
I know there are disadvantages to this idea but if the airlines are keen to fly to/from Heathrow, they can create "new slots" themselves.

 

[News Guru]

Willie Walsh: no Heathrow expansion now

Willie Walsh, boss of the owner of British Airways, today admitted “I don’t see any prospect of Heathrow ever expanding — it’s now too politically sensitive.”

The chief executive of International Airlines Group said Heathrow “missed the opportunity of expansion several years ago,” explaining: “Heathrow should have pursued the issue but instead made unhelpful comments that it didn’t want to expand. It’s difficult to reverse the situation. I don’t see any prospect of Heathrow ever expanding.”

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 43802.html

 

[lysander]

Our local Sheffield newspaper is carrying a Heathrow inspired article making the case for more slots and hence connections with regional airports ( RHADS in our case) if Heathrow is allowed to expand!

 

[News Guru]

Whatever the airports commission's plan, the only way is likely to be Heathrow

As Howard Davies, chairman of the inquiry, prepares to give his first speech on the expansion of our airports, he may find himself already boxed in

As the reality dawned last week that Britain's most powerful force in aviation, Heathrow, had convinced regulators it should squeeze its customers a little more, the irate boss of British Airways owner IAG pondered the unthinkable. Could the national carrier decamp elsewhere?

But Willie Walsh's fury was stoked by his impotence. In this "abusive monopoly" there was, he conceded, no alternative in the UK – yet

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... n-heathrow

 

[Ray Finkle]

A snippet of the speech about the role regional airports may or may not have.

Finally, the fourth argument is that such a conclusion ignores the scope for regional airports to take more of the strain, if only the government were prepared to intervene to make this happen. Many passengers from elsewhere in the UK use south eastern airports. They might be expected to prefer to use an airport nearer to home.

Some regional airports have indeed grown quickly in recent years, and have established profitable niches in the national market. There is nothing to prevent that happening, and airlines have an incentive to run flights from regional airports, which offer cheaper landing charges and, often, faster boarding times, with cheaper parking for passengers. These are welcome developments.

But it remains the case that the largest market and the highest propensity to fly are in the south east of England. On average, a resident of Greater London takes 2.5 flights a year, compared to just over 1.5 for the country as a whole. This will always make it an attractive market for airlines, even before you take into account the significant projected population growth in the region. The population of Greater London has grown much more rapidly than forecast in the last decade.

Also, some routes will only ever be available from the largest airports. We have been given a clear message from many regional stakeholders that while their local airports are important to their economies, so is access to the international connectivity available in London and the south east.

Links to other European hubs from regional airports provide an alternative to some degree, but this is not always the best solution either for passengers or for the environment. The journey from Glasgow to Chicago, for example, is roughly 17 per cent longer via Frankfurt than via London.

An increasing number of regional airports now also have services to the Gulf hubs, and there are some routes which these are well-placed to serve. Birmingham to Mumbai is only fractionally further via the Gulf than via London – and the range of onward destinations offered on the Indian Subcontinent is huge. A passenger going from Tyneside to Sydney only needs to make one stop if travelling through Dubai, compared to two if she goes via London. But these airports will not provide the most attractive option for every journey, even when heading east. The distance from Glasgow to Beijing via Dubai, for example, is more than a third longer than via a London airport, with all that implies in terms of convenience and carbon emissions.

It is important to recognise, too, that the tools available to the authorities to influence the location of flights are very limited. The European framework governing the use of traffic distribution rules puts tight bounds on the scope for intervention and other EU rules prohibit any market-distorting use of subsidies. It has been put to us that the government could use the rates and incidence of APD to encourage new routes, especially long-haul routes from regional airports. There is currently one example of such an arrangement, in Belfast. In our interim report we will explore the options, but our early analysis has suggested that even with a significant differential the effects would not necessarily be substantial, and there could be perverse consequences. Distributing demand to some destinations across a number of airports could see a higher number of smaller flights being needed to achieve the same degree of national connectivity. We will say more on this point later.....

....So our provisional conclusion from this analysis of the four arguments put to us is that we will need some net additional runway capacity in the south east of England in the coming decades. (Some of the options presented to us envisage the closure of existing airports to provide headroom for expansion elsewhere: in our scenario planning we need therefore to take account of potential ups and downs in gross capacity over time). An attempt to rely only on runways currently in operation would be likely to produce a distinctly sub-optimal solution for passengers, connectivity and the economy.

It may also not be the best solution in terms of minimising the overall carbon impact of flights and travel to and from airports. More point to point flights in smaller aircraft, together with long passenger movements to airports remote from them, bring significant disadvantages. A mechanism for managing the carbon impacts of aviation will be needed if the UK is to achieve its statutory carbon targets – just as it will in other countries. But this is the case whether new runway capacity is provided in the south east or not.

Full report: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... -in-the-uk

 

[News Guru]

Third Heathrow runway will 'never' be built

Willie Walsh, head of British Airways-owner IAG, warns politicians will put their own election concerns over the national interest when it comes to deciding whether new runways can be built in London.

A third runway will “never” be built at Heathrow as politicians will always put their election campaigns over national interests, the head of British Airways’ parent company has claimed.

Nimbyism will stop politicians from doing anything with the findings of Sir Howard Davies’s Airports Commission, Willie Walsh, the chief executive of International Airlines Group (IAG), said.

“There will never be a third runway at Heathrow. I just don’t see it happening as it’s politically too difficult,” Mr Walsh said at a conference in London.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... built.html

 

[News Guru]

'Expanding Heathrow could cause plane crash in London' -

MP Justine Greening's claims branded 'scaremongering'

Cabinet minister Justine Greening said adding extra runways at the airport meant more plans flying over the capital - increasing the risk of crashes

A top Tory was attacked today after claiming that expanding Heathrow increased the risk of a plane crashing in London and killing thousands.

Cabinet minister Justine Greening said adding extra runways at the airport meant more plans flying over the capital - increasing the risk of crashes.

She said: “We cannot beat the odds forever”.

The International Development Secretary said it would be more likely that a plane would plunge from the skies into west London — either due to human error or a terrorist attack — if there were more flights.

Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex ... z2jhJ4FHrw

 

[Aviador]

Scaremongering yes, true, probably. Any increase in flights from any airport will inevitably increase the odds of a plane crash. The Department for Transport measures the risk of fatal air crashes at 0.1 per million flights. The majority of major European airports have had at least one major accident over the years, Heathrow is no exception. Even smaller airports have seen some major accidents over the years.

 

[News Guru]

Heathrow expansion remains preferred option

Building a third runway at Heathrow remains the travel industry’s preferred option for increasing airport capacity in the south-east.

A survey of around 1,300 travel executives by World Travel Market found that 40 per cent believed that allowing Heathrow to expand was the best solution to the lack of hub capacity. This was up from 34 per cent in 2012’s study.

Read more: http://buyingbusinesstravel.com/news/07 ... red-option

 

[News Guru]

Heathrow third runway being pushed ahead by government, says Goldsmith

George Osborne hiding behind Davies commission, says MP, after claims that report options all involve Heathrow expansion

A Conservative MP has claimed the government was trying to push through a third runway at Heathrow by hiding behind initial recommendations made by the independent airports commission led by Sir Howard Davies, whose interim report is due out next week.

Zac Goldsmith, the MP for Richmond Park and North Kingston, accused George Osborne of "yearning for a China-style government", saying on Twitter: "Osborne has spent public money on a review whose only purpose is to make a 3rd runway decision look like it was reached independently."

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -goldsmith

 

[News Guru]

Davies “favours Heathrow expansion”

Howard Davies suggestions for airport expansion have a lenience towards a third and potential fourth runway at Heathrow to cope with on-going demand, according to reports this morning.

Details of the Airport Commission’s interim report have been apparently leaked after Davies took a draft to Chancellor George Osborne yesterday, which are said to skew towards a third runway at Heathrow and then either a fourth at the airport or a second at Gatwick, according to the Guardian.

Osborne already favours the Heathrow expansion, while rumours are circulating that previous critic Ed Miliband is now backing the third runway.

Read more: http://www.traveldailymedia.com/201373/ ... expansion/

 

[Aviador]

Heathrow cleared for take-off? Third (and even FOURTH) runway plans 'set to get green light in cynical Government report'

A U-turn by David Cameron over Heathrow expansion could cause a huge political row with the Tory faithful who vehemently oppose the plans.

It would represent an 'off-the-scale betrayal' which would cause voters across the country to question whether he could be trusted, Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith said, while London Mayor Boris Johnson has called the expansion 'wrong for the country'.

The Government-appointed Airports Commission is due to outline its initial thoughts in a report next week, but Mr Goldsmith questioned its independence and suggested that accepting its findings would effectively be supporting the expansion of Heathrow.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2nZTynUPi

If true it was never going to be a popular decision but it is the right one. Spending £45bn on a brand new Themes estuary airport is madness when Heathrow (or Stansted) can be expanded at a fraction of the cost.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Didn't I read somewhere in the past week that newspaper reports suggest that the PM had met with Davies to ensure that the final short list would meet with government approval?

It'll be a new government anyway before the final report is published and a Labour or Labour/LibDem coalition would play politics for sure if they didn't like the report and blame the present coalition (even though the LibDems are part of it).

A Conservative government would also find ways of avoiding putting the final conclusions into practice if it didn't like them.

Most commentators seem to agree that Davies was set up so the present government didn't have to grapple with a contentious problem before the election.

As is always the case, in the end the government (of whichever political complexion) will do what it it judges politically expedient whether it coincides with Davies or not.