For the love of Britain, give them the runway

[Glom]

If the airport infrastructure around London doesn't expand soon, the role of Britain in the world economy will shrink as functional airports in Paris, Amsterdam, Munich etc undercut our role. Decades of appeasement of myopic NIMBYs will soon reduce this country to a second rate economic power and that is very sad for its people including me .

It is Heathrow and Gatwick that need the runways. Some stupid jerk signed some deal years ago that said there could not be another runway until 2016 or something. Good thing they have the second runway or they would be screwed but of course only one can be active at any one time. They need to have two useable runways. Putting one to the north would be easiest since the two would sandwich the terminals.

But looking at the map, the flight path of this new 26R/08L would be low over Horley so they'd kick up a real fuss. What would be better is if they changed the runway direction to 27/09. That way they could build a new one to the north of the field. It could even just be a shorthaul runway (for now, you can always extend such as is proposed for Luton), which with a new terminal for EasyJet, who are massive at Gatwick, would take a lot of traffic away from the south runway.

The south runway could be replaced with another long haul runway parallel to the north one. The new south runway could be built a bit to the south of the current one allowing the current one to remain in operation while it is built as well as allowing the flight path for the north runway to avoid Horley as much as possible being not being too far north.

Then there's Heathrow. The proposal for a third short haul runway to the north of the current area could be useful as well as a T6 in between them. Heathrow definitely should junk that stupid Bermuda II agreement that says one runway must be used for takeoff and the other for landing, and switch to mixed mode. That will add a few slots and enable the airport to at least do as much as it can. Moreover, if 09L is being used for takeoffs, then aircraft from T4 have to cross 09R and taxi to the opposite corner of the airport wasting a ridiculous amount of fuel. Not even the most evangelical environmentalists can justify Bermuda II.

[Russ]

Sounds like both are suffering from Urban Strangulation. Why not do what Denver did? Build an new one out in an empty field and abandon Hethrow and Gatwick. Or turn them into local/regional commuter hubs.

I make the Denver suggestion with the stipulation that they do a much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much BETTER job of it. :roll:

[Glom]

Heathrow won't be abandoned anytime soon since we have a new cool terminal. There isn't any places for a brand new airport.

We have a classic case of settlements cropping up around airports because of the jobs they bring and then the residents start complaining about the airport that is the life blood of their community. Damn NIMBYs!

I think my Gatwick suggestion would be the easiest. The proposed second runway at Stansted is totally unnecessary but of course is the one with the least NIMBY problems.

[George]

Have them check out the new $2.7 Billion terminal D at D/FW. It opens in two months. Tell them they should renogiate for the runway allowance or else you will all (ya'll'll) move to Texas. :wink:

[Russ]

Have them check out the new $2.7 Billion terminal D at D/FW. It opens in two months. Tell them they should renogiate for the runway allowance or else you will all (ya'll'll) move to Texas. :wink:

Shut your mouth! Texas has enough problems with outsiders without the gun grabbing Britts crowding out us natives.

[Dark Helmet]

Orange County just shot down both an expansion to the existing airport, which already has obscene takeoff requirements to reduce noise. AND a proposed International Airport on the site of a now closed marine corps air station.

[archman]

There is quite a bit of *hush hush* interest in the southern california political crowd regarding Miramar Naval Air Station. The Marines have to downsize their attack squadrons signficantly to pay for F-35's, and Miramar is ripe for being placed on the infamous BRAC list coming out this month. If it makes the list and Congress approves it, Miramar will close down. San Diego then gets a wonderful new airport location.

Does Britain have any military air bases that can be closed down and taken over by civilian airports?

[captain swoop]

Heathrow is a terrible airport. I don't see how anyone can even consider further expansion. Have you ever tried to use the M4? it's gridlocked with commuter traffic into London before the airport traffic hits it. Expand Gatwick is what I say.

[Frog march]

I don't know why they didn't convert Greenham Common US base into an airport, it already had a massive runway. But they ripped that up and now I think that it is just a common again.....

[Richard of Chelmsford]

I don't see why NIMBYS should complain so much.

I used to live under the flight path of Prestwick Airport in Bonnie Scotland and I like to see the planes whooshing overhead.

I found it quite exciting.

Mind you, I was only about 9 at the time...

[Sticks]

We should be making more use of our regional airports.

Why should flights to and from the states have to go via London, especially when we can get to a variety of destinations in Europe from say Newcastle International airport near where I live

See also this link

For more details on proposals about UK airports, I refer you to The Future of Air Transport - White Paper

[mid]

I don't know why they didn't convert Greenham Common US base into an airport, it already had a massive runway. But they ripped that up and now I think that it is just a common again.....

Presumably for the same reason that they ditched plans to turn Bentwaters into a civilian airport. The size of runway these bases had was HUGE, as you'd expect when you look at the size of the largest military bombers and transporters; in order for the airport to make any sense at all you've got to make the terminals and infrastructure as big as Stansted or larger. But Bentwaters would mean correspondingly huge amounts of traffic added to the A12, which is already a car park most days.

You might be able to get the planes in and out, but the transport links on the ground are woefully inadequate to the task, and upgrading them would get even more complaints from the Greens than the airport would.

[papageno]

I used to live under the flight path of Prestwick Airport in Bonnie Scotland and I like to see the planes whooshing overhead.

I live not too far from Heathrow.
I like seeing planes taking off or landing.
What I don't like is hearing them.

[Glom]

There's East Midlands and Birmingham that could be made bigger. The 787 would give new freedoms for using smaller airports.

Or we could tax aviation fuel? We might not even "need" airport expansion then? 8-[ 8-[ 8-[

[captain swoop]

Quite right. I pay tax on fuel, trains do, busses do lorries do, even ships. Why should airlines be any different?

[teddyv]

Quite right. I pay tax on fuel, trains do, busses do lorries do, even ships. Why should airlines be any different?

Check your ticket cost next time - there probably already is a fuel surcharge :-?

[Glom]

Or we could tax aviation fuel? We might not even "need" airport expansion then? 8-[ 8-[ 8-[

If destruction of the economy is also your objective, then try it. Any tax capable of stalling aviation growth would devastate the economy because it would mean that no-one was travelling to and from the country hence no business was being done. We are an island and we need air travel.

Expansion is desperately needed now so if the need was eliminated, it would mean that the industry had virtually collapsed.

Besides it wouldn't work because the airlines would buy their fuel off shore, not to mention that other countries would take our business, which is exactly what I was complaining about in the OP. Aviation is not something that can be decided at the national level.

[mid]

Check your ticket cost next time - there probably already is a fuel surcharge :-?

In the UK at least, this 'surcharge' is purely there to partially offset the fact that oil prices have gone through the roof, with no indication that they will come back down again. It has nothing whatsoever to do with tax.

[Glom]

Quite right. I pay tax on fuel, trains do, busses do lorries do, even ships. Why should airlines be any different?

You mean why should passengers be any different? They're the ones who will pay.

[Candy]

Check your ticket cost next time - there probably already is a fuel surcharge :-?

In the UK at least, this 'surcharge' is purely there to partially offset the fact that oil prices have gone through the roof, with no indication that they will come back down again. It has nothing whatsoever to do with tax.

Nicely put, mid.

[kylenano]

i was at Hampton Court years ago when Concorde went over. It was impossible to speak or hear anything until it had gone. On Saturday (four days ago) we were at a bus stop next to Heathrow Airport - the runway, not any of the terminals. The noise from the planes taxiing to the runway was deafening.

Much of the housing around Heathrow was built before it became a major airport (you see a lot of it from the top of a 140, then a 111 bus travelling from Harrow to Hampton via Hounslow!). No amount of soundproofing can stop the noise the aeroplanes make - the vibrations make buildings shake. Why should anyone have to tolerate that kind of noise? You can't sit outside comfortably under the flightpath - I would hate to be trapped in the house because of noise.

Enough of the country is disappearing under concrete with detrimental effects eg to groundwater because rainwater washes straight down drains instead of soaking into the ground. The amount of hard surface is now so great as to be significant.

Whenever the sky here has little cloud I can usually count about 8 aeroplanes overhead (NW London, in the middle of Stanstead, Luton, Northolt and Heathrow) - and that's those I can see. Where are all these aeroplanes going to go? From an astronomical point of view, I'm fed up with the contrails that cover what would have been a clear sky (if you can see anything through the light pollution).

Horley isn't much to write home about, but Sussex is. I grew up there and when I travel by train down to Brighton, it's not until Sussex that there is proper countryside. Or are you advocating that the countryside is of no importance?

A few days ago I went to see the Turner - Whistler - Monet exhibition at Tate Britain. Many of the atmospheric paintings of London were of air pollution - thick smogs you could only see a few yards in. It took legislation before the air became clean(er). There have to be restrictions on industrial development because without them we'd be living in very unpleasant conditions.

I'm fully aware of Glom's views on environmentalists, but so much of what might help the ecomony involves short term thinking. At the moment it seems to be propped up by credit card debt.

BTW I'm 45 and I've only travelled by plane once - to New Zealand. So I wouldn't want to ban aircraft, but they do have detrimental effects far beyond airport terminals which can't be ignored.

[frogesque]

Why should the Southeast have it all anyway? Spread a little investment around the country and develop other regional airports like Robin Hood Airport at Doncaster Sheffield built on the site of the former RAF Finningley airbase.

Airports bring noise and some inconvenience but they also bring a great many jobs and prosperity. I'm sure canny Yorkshire can make money out of any SE cast-offs.

Edit: fixed link

[John Kierein]

Lots of runway in 405themovie.com

Quite right. I pay tax on fuel, trains do, busses do lorries do, even ships. Why should airlines be any different?

Well said CS!! =D> =D> =D> =D>

[mid]

You mean why should passengers be any different? They're the ones who will pay.

Then perhaps we should, actually. Right now, we're in the ludicrous situation that it costs about as much in fuel for me to drive the 60 minutes to Heathrow and back as the price of my ticket from there to the south of France before airport taxes. When it's cheaper to fly to Edinburgh than take the train, and that difference is in no small part down to differing tax regimes, you have to wonder if that's sensible.

[captain swoop]

I don't buy this argument that putting tax on aviation fuel will bring the economy crashing dow. If people couldn't fly to Vienna for a £10 cheap drunken weekend do we think the economy would collapse?

People are flying to Dublin from London or to Newcastle from Holland just to get drunk at the weekend for goodness sake!.

As for noise polution, I lived in Charlton opposite the Isle of Dogs in London, aircraft inbound to Heathrow turn onto their approach over Canary Wharf, on a clear day you could see them in a lovely line going off into the distance, all day and all night we had the roar of airliners turning in from every direction and that's on the other side of Greater London. It's not just the people in the immediate area that are impacted by an airport.

[worzel]

Heathrow is a terrible airport. I don't see how anyone can even consider further expansion. Have you ever tried to use the M4? it's gridlocked with commuter traffic into London before the airport traffic hits it. Expand Gatwick is what I say.

For central London (where I live) Heathrow is great. Far enough away not to be heard, and only a twenty minute tube ride away. Gatwick and Stanstead may be more suited to car drivers outside of central London but I hate having to use them.

[Glom]

i was at Hampton Court years ago when Concorde went over. It was impossible to speak or hear anything until it had gone.

Well you'll be glad to know that Concorde is dead as are any turbojets.

On Saturday (four days ago) we were at a bus stop next to Heathrow Airport - the runway, not any of the terminals. The noise from the planes taxiing to the runway was deafening.

The terminals are next to the runway. I have been many times to a nice restaurant at one of Heathrow's hotels. It's across the road from 27R/08L. It's louder (it's an airport after all) but hardly deafening. I sense there's more hyerbole in that. Besides, wind back 30 years and you will know the true meaning of aircraft noise with all those low bypass turbofans and turbojets.

Much of the housing around Heathrow was built before it became a major airport (you see a lot of it from the top of a 140, then a 111 bus travelling from Harrow to Hampton via Hounslow!).

But most of the people weren't living there when Heathrow was first built. Heathrow was a hamlet before the airport, hence why it was a good place. Nobody was there.

No amount of soundproofing can stop the noise the aeroplanes make - the vibrations make buildings shake.

Hyperbole. It is possible to make nice soundproofed houses that are also very well insulated for lowering heating bills. Besides, modern aircrafts are much quieter with more efficient airframes and quieter engines.

Why should anyone have to tolerate that kind of noise?

Don't think I'm not sympathetic, but you can't please everyone. Other people have to tolerate other things that are necessary to the functioning of our country such as landfills, water treatment plants, power stations etc.

Enough of the country is disappearing under concrete with detrimental effects eg to groundwater because rainwater washes straight down drains instead of soaking into the ground. The amount of hard surface is now so great as to be significant.

Sounds like you have a greater problem with urbanisation.

Whenever the sky here has little cloud I can usually count about 8 aeroplanes overhead (NW London, in the middle of Stanstead, Luton, Northolt and Heathrow) - and that's those I can see.

Some people like them. Some people don't like the look of buses, but that's life.

Where are all these aeroplanes going to go?

Not here or they would be lower.

From an astronomical point of view, I'm fed up with the contrails that cover what would have been a clear sky (if you can see anything through the light pollution).

That's not to do with any of the London airports since airports inbound to those don't generate contrails. Besides, I've never noticed this. I'm sensing more hyperbole.

Horley isn't much to write home about, but Sussex is. I grew up there and when I travel by train down to Brighton, it's not until Sussex that there is proper countryside.

Well I'm sorry for attempting to come up with a solution that would cause the least burden for the residents of Horley. I've read the White Paper and now I appreciate why it has to take so long. Environmental considerations are taken very seriously. But they also have to consider the good of the country as a whole.

Or are you advocating that the countryside is of no importance?

I don't know where you got that from?

A few days ago I went to see the Turner - Whistler - Monet exhibition at Tate Britain. Many of the atmospheric paintings of London were of air pollution - thick smogs you could only see a few yards in. It took legislation before the air became clean(er). There have to be restrictions on industrial development because without them we'd be living in very unpleasant conditions.

Today's aircraft are not relevant since they are all high bypass turbofans, which are mostly chucking out slightly warmed air.. It's old cars and coal burning that did that.

I'm fully aware of Glom's views on environmentalists, but so much of what might help the ecomony involves short term thinking.

And what would help the economy in the long term? Allowing connections to the rest of the world to wither? We are island. We will lose out to Europe if we fall behind. He who does not progress dies.

BTW I'm 45 and I've only travelled by plane once - to New Zealand.

Unfathomable. It's been two weeks since my last flight and I'm already suffering withdrawal.

So I wouldn't want to ban aircraft,

Well that's comforting.

Right now, we're in the ludicrous situation that it costs about as much in fuel for me to drive the 60 minutes to Heathrow and back as the price of my ticket from there to the south of France before airport taxes.

What about after airport taxes? And I'm not happy with the taxation of fuel either. Taxing such commodities are unjust as they affect the poorer people. It's basically a poll tax not a progressive tax. Everyone has the right to travel the world.

I don't buy this argument that putting tax on aviation fuel will bring the economy crashing dow.

Not a regular tax, but Pete is suggesting a tax that would destroy the aviation industry (the only way to stop congestion in airports). Given the importance of the industry to the economy of this country, this would be unacceptable. If people weren't travelling to and from the country, where would the money from? We shouldn't be so inward looking. We depend on the rest of the world and we need to be able to reach them and they need to be able to reach us. This about more than just domestic travel. Heathrow is the largest international airport in the world. It receives business from all over the world.

If people couldn't fly to Vienna for a £10 cheap drunken weekend do we think the economy would collapse?

Oh please! Like that represents the cross section of passengers.

It's not just the people in the immediate area that are impacted by an airport.

Engines are becoming quieter all the time. The A380 will meet the quota 2 restriction. And it's not just people in the immediate area that benefit from it. Where would London be without all those lovely American tourists? Besides my origina point was that if we allow our infrastructure to wither, Europe will not and they will take our business.

From reading the White Paper, I see that the economists give very deep consideration to environmental issues. Why don't environmentalists give the same deep consideration to economic issues?

[enginelessjohn]

One thing that occured to me about the original proposal too was a second runway 10 degrees off the first would result in approach paths in a westerly crossing 6 miles out from the thresholds. Or about 3 minutes from touchdown, at about 2000 ft. Not good.

I'm in favour of airlines paying tax on fuel as well. Businesses will fail to crash, as all that will happen is video conferences will happen more often, which is exactly what happened after september 11th 2001, when pretty much every company banned air travel, except where completely essential. Cheap air fares are loss leaders to attract people to fly. Loosing these will reduce the amount of travelling but businesses will still travel when they have to.

I lived about 1 mile from Gatwick for a year, and whenever there was a high pressure inversion there was a brown stripe visible on the horizon. The air always smelled of jet fuel, and my car was always covered in a greasy film. While the noise wasn't all that bad as I was south of the main runway, it wasn't that nice, and I totally understand where the nimbys are coming from. And I wouldn't want to live next to a major airport again.

There is also the issue of carbon dioxide emmissions from airliners which I suspect is rather a contentious one around here.

Cheers
John