London Heathrow LHR Third Runway

[Pieter C. 5]

BAA Drops Plans For New Heathrow, Stansted Runways

 

May 25, 2010

 

British airports operator BAA, owned by Spanish builder Ferrovial, has dropped plans to build new runways at London's Heathrow and Stansted airports, citing changes to government airports policy.

 

Britain's new ruling Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition said it would block additional runways at Stansted and Gatwick as well as cancelling plans for a third runway at Heathrow as part of a programme for a low-carbon economy.

 

BAA owns Heathrow, Britain's biggest airport, as well as Stansted, its third-largest. It sold Gatwick, which also serves London, late last year.

 

"We recognise the importance of government policy in a matter as significant and controversial as runway capacity," BAA chief executive Colin Matthews said in a statement.

 

BAA had already spent GBP£190 million (USD$273 million) on the Stansted project. Heathrow airport declined to say how much it had spent.

 

The government gave the go-ahead in January last year for a third runway and another terminal at congested Heathrow airport as part of GBP£9 billion (USD$13 billion) expansion the then Labour leadership said was crucial to Britain's prosperity.

 

But the project ran into fierce opposition and a legal challenge from local residents and environmentalists concerned about noise and increased carbon emissions.

 

"BAA has finally come to terms with reality and recognised what everyone else has known for months. New runways at Heathrow and Stansted... never made sense on economic or environmental grounds," environmental group Greenpeace said in a statement.

 

Stansted had previously said new runway capacity was urgently required if the UK was to preserve its global economic competitiveness.

 

In a separate development, Bristol Airport in western England said its local authority had approved an expansion that would allow it to almost double the number of passengers it handles.

 

(Reuters)

 

Bristol Airport Gets Green Light For Expansion

 

May 24, 2010

 

Local authorities cleared plans to expand Bristol Airport in western England, to allow it to almost double the number of passengers it handles.

 

Clearance by North Somerset Council will allow the airport to press ahead with plans to handle 10 million passengers a year by 2019-20, up from around six million at present.

 

The airport, jointly owned by a unit of Australia's Macquarie and Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, is the ninth largest in Britain, a spokesman said on Monday.

 

The expansion plan was focused around the existing site and did not involve an additional runway or terminal.

 

Separately, British airports operator BAA, owned by Spanish builder Ferrovial, said it had dropped plans to build additional runways at Heathrow and Stansted airports in London in the face of opposition from Britain's new government.

 

(Reuters)

[Pieter C. 5]

UK Needs To Expand Airports - Industry Body

 

July 14, 2010

 

The UK government's decision to rule out building further runways at airports in the southeast of England could seriously undermine Britain's connectivity and competitiveness, according to a report published on Wednesday.

 

The coalition government which took office in May cancelled plans for a third runway at London's Heathrow airport and said it would block runways at Stansted and Gatwick as part of a programme for a low-carbon economy.

 

In its report "Rethinking Aviation", the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) acknowledged the need to address the environmental impact of unrestrained growth in demand for air travel but said the government must consider long-term airport infrastructure needs.

 

"Air transport and airport infrastructure are vital for the UK's international connectivity and prosperity. As a trading island nation and popular tourist destination we depend on our ability to connect with the rest of the world," said ICE aviation expert Simon Godfrey-Arnold.

 

"World class airport infrastructure helps attract inward investment, enables access to an international labour force and provides direct business and leisure links to growing economies around the world like China, Brazil and India."

 

ICE -- whose members design and build bridges, roads, railways and large buildings -- warned that capacity constraints could result in international carriers abandoning Heathrow, Britain's biggest airport, in favour of larger and more economically attractive northern European hubs.

 

BAA, a unit of Spanish builder Ferrovial, owns Heathrow and Stansted airports. Global Infrastructure Partners, founded by Credit Suisse and General Electric, owns Gatwick.

 

While aircraft innovation must be stepped up so that in the long term the industry can contribute to emissions reductions, the government should initially look to make emissions cuts elsewhere, Godfrey-Arnold said.

 

The report said high-speed rail alone would not be enough to reduce demand for domestic flights as it would not always compete with air travel on price, flexibility and connectivity.

 

ICE's recommendations include introducing a carbon price floor to curb demand for air travel by making flying more expensive. It suggested reducing emissions by encouraging more use of public transport to airports rather than private cars.

 

(Reuters)

[alberttky 0]

London Heathrow made its formal submission to the Airports Commission today, offering three third runway options to help solve the UK’s lack of hub capacity.

The three options would see a new runway placed north, north-west or south-west of the existing airport.

Heathrow claims that all three options are quicker and cheaper than any rival submission and will, by 2025 to 2029, deliver extra capacity at a cost of between £14 billion and £18 billion.

However, between £4 billion and £6 billion of these costs will be for public transport and noise mitigation and will potentially fall to the taxpayer.

The north-west option (above) would see a new, full-length 3.5km runway constructed just south of the M25/M4 junction, with part of the M25 being reconfigured to go under the runway. Around 950 residential properties and two listed buildings would face demolition.

This option offers a total capacity of 740,000 flights, compared to 480,000 today, and is competitive with Paris and Frankfurt, both of which have more runways and capacity of 700,000.

The south-west option would see a third runway constructed over the King George VI and Wraysbury reservoirs, with new apron and terminal facilities on the site of Stanwell Moor, putting 850 residential properties at risk.

This option presents a more complex construction challenge due to the runway being built over a reservoir. This results in the need to re-provide wildlife habitat and flood zone storage.

A larger section of the M25 would need to be tunnelled than with the north-west option and Junction 13 would need to be reconstructed. This means costs would increase to £18 billion and the runway would not be operational until 2029.

Both the north-west and south-west options would see passengers travelling through a new Terminal 6, which would be similar in size and design to T5.

The third option, located north of the existing facility, would be the quickest and cheapest to complete, with a shorter 2.8km runway, limiting its use for larger four-engine aircrafts such as the A380.

However, there would be a greater impact on the local community, with a total of around 2,700 residential properties facing demolition.

Construction would take five years from planning consent, with an estimated operational date of 2025 and total costs estimated at around £14 billion.

Heathrow said that it prefers the two westerly options as the full-length runway allows for all aircraft types to take off and land, giving greater operational flexibility for when things go wrong and also more periods of respite for local residents.

The airport is already planning for a fourth runway “should the demand increase”. However, Heathrow CEO Colin Matthews said he believes a fourth runway will not be required until at least 2040.

The two westerly options also allow LHR to reduce its noise footprint by up to 20 per cent by 2030. Even with a third runway, the increasing presence of modern, quieter aircraft, steeper ascents and new flight paths that avoid populated areas will help reduce noise levels, the airport submission claims.

However, London Mayor Boris Johnson recently dismissed the claims that Heathrow could reduce its noise footprint with a third runway. He told the BBC: "There will be more pigs flying than aircraft if we are to believe the claim that three runways at Heathrow will make less noise than two.”

Speaking at the opening of the Emirates Aviation Experience earlier this month (see online news, July 5), Johnson said: “Let’s be clear, you could cause untold misery in the western suburbs of London and do it at Heathrow.”

 

Today, Matthews reiterated the UK's need for a hub airport "with the capacity to provide the links to emerging economies which can boost UK jobs, GDP and trade. It is clear that the best solution for taxpayers, passengers and business is to build on the strength we already have at Heathrow.”

A new runway and terminal at LHR would create between 70,000 and 150,000 new jobs, according to the airport, as opposed to “the biggest mass redundancy in UK history,” that Matthews predicts if the government was to close Heathrow.

Heathrow’s proposals come two days after the London mayor announced his three preferred options of a four-runway hub to the east of the city.

Johnson said this would be achieved either through a new-build hub in one of two locations in the Thames estuary, or a transformed Stansted. The estimated costs of the new-build options range from £50 billion to £70 billion, more than three times the amounts Heathrow quoted today.

Responding to the alternative option of building a four runway hub elsewhere in the capital, the Heathrow proposal said: “This [a third runway] is a more cost effective solution than building a new four runway airport from scratch when we may never need one.”

The Board of Airline representatives in the UK (BAR) has revealed that a survey of its member airlines revealed “89.8 per cent favour expansion of Heathrow with only one airline known to support a new airport in the Thames Estuary”.

The Airports Commission is due to announce a shortlist of feasible options by the end of the year, with a final decision not due until after the next general election in 2015.

http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/heathrow-submits-third-runway-plans

Edited July 18, 2013 by alberttky

[Y. J. Foo 0]

Good luck trying to get this plan anywhere... The politicians over there will succumb to NIMBY's pressure and scuttle the plan, even if everyone knows LHR really, really could use 4 runways right now.

[Azman MN 1]

I have no sympathy for those Nimbys. They bought houses there cheap because the airport is nearby and then they complain about it.

[Mulyadir Fitri 0]

People are already avoiding LHR in favour of CDG coz of the tax. If they delay this any longer more and more travellers will shun LHR. NIMBYs are a pain in the ass. The new MRT in KL had to be realigned several times because of those buggers.

[Azman MN 1]

The MRT one I have a bit more sympathy. For heathrow... , the airport has been there for a number of generations. Most people who live in those areas right now moved there when the airport was already there.

[flee 5]

People are already avoiding LHR in favour of CDG coz of the tax. If they delay this any longer more and more travellers will shun LHR. NIMBYs are a pain in the ass. The new MRT in KL had to be realigned several times because of those buggers.

Yes, I for one,would want to avoid those rude British Immigration officers. Immigration at ORY and CDG is a breeze, in comparison.

[zamim 0]

 

Improved expansion proposals published by Heathrow today are the only way to connect all of the UK to growth.

Heathrow today announced an improved plan to expand the UKs hub airport that will create more than 100,000 new UK jobs and at least £100bn of UK economic benefits by connecting all of the UK to global growth.

The figures are part of Heathrows revised expansion plans that will be submitted tomorrow to the Airports Commission. The submission follows discussions with local residents and businesses, the public, businesses around the country, passengers, airlines and elected representatives across the UKs nations and regions. Heathrow is the UKs only hub and the only option that will connect the whole of the UK to new emerging economies, bringing jobs and prosperity to the country. It is deliverable, fundable and will create a world-class global gateway to make Britain proud. And it proposes to go further than any other large-scale UK infrastructure project in compensating for its impact on surrounding communities.

 

Key elements of Heathrows proposals include:

 

Every nation and region of Britain to be connected to global markets:

More than 100,000 new jobs created. This includes 50,000 new jobs in the local Heathrow area, plus a further 20,000+ across London and another 50,000+ across the UK.

At least £100bn of UK economic benefits, better than any other airport expansion option.

40 new direct, daily routes to fast growing economies such as San José, Wuhan and Kolkata.

Doubling cargo capacity to improve UK export competitiveness. 65% of the UKs £400bn freight exports already travel via Heathrow.

New rail access to Wales and the West through the Western mainline, the South and South West through Southern Rail Access, and the North through HS2. Total rail capacity will treble from 5,000 to 15,000 seats per hour.

A Taskforce for Regional Connectivity will be established to develop proposals for how regional air links to Heathrow can be improved. Additional capacity will provide space for flights to cities such as Inverness, Liverpool and Newquay.

Investment in airport infrastructure will create jobs across the UK while a new runway is being built

[flee 5]

The UK Airports Commission has backed development of a third runway at London Heathrow after delivering its long-awaited final report on expanding aviation capacity in the UK.

While describing the other shortlisted schemes - the extension of Heathrow's northern runway and an additional runway at London Gatwick - as credible options, it says the Commission has "unanimously concluded" that the proposal for a new north-west runway at Heathrow Airport, combined with a "significant package of measures" to address environmental and community impacts, presents the "strongest case" and offers the greatest strategic and economic benefits.

"The Commission’s recommendation is a fundamentally different proposition from previous proposals to expand at Heathrow," it adds. "It delivers a full-length runway, maximising the connectivity gain. It is situated further west than the current runways, which will help to reduce the number of people affected by noise. And it is accompanied by strong measures to limit the impacts on those living nearby."

Those measures include a ban on scheduled night flights between 23:30 and 06:00 as well as a firm parliamentary commitment not to pursue a fourth runway for the hub.

More:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-commission-recommends-heathrow-third-runway-414198/

[Y. J. Foo 0]

In other words, the Commission has stated the obvious, which British aviation industry has been saying this past decade. Perhaps they should just throw in a fourth runway as well.

 

Unfortunately it seems pretty apparent also that the Tories and those brain dead NIMBYs will block this proposal, notwithstanding the fact LHR is increasingly losing out to continental European competitors due to operational constraints.

[flee 5]

I am a bit disappointed with the curfew though.

 

Modern aircraft is far less noisy compared to old ones. They should also tighten up on their noise regulations and permit aircraft that comply with the latest noise standards to fly in and out 24 hrs. The most noisy aircraft should just be banned from LHR.

Unfortunately it seems pretty apparent also that the Tories and those brain dead NIMBYs will block this proposal, notwithstanding the fact LHR is increasingly losing out to continental European competitors due to operational constraints.

And don't forget, the skyhigh APD.

[geoff.leo 0]

Ideally, it would have been good to see Gatwick getting it's second runway together with Heathrow getting it's third.

 

I don't see a need for Gatwick to compromise. Plenty of land available and noise isn't that big of an issue down in quiet Sussex.

 

It's obviously a popular airport in it's own right and operating almost at full capacity with that single runway.

 

You get the feeling that the British work tirelessly and passionately to limit aviation growth at all costs.

 

And a bit disappointing that Heathrow won't be a 24-hour airport even with the third runway. They could have worked something out like what Haneda did, keeping the airport open at night but with reduced slots for those late timings.

 

Just imagine the potentially astronomical passenger and aircraft movement figures if that were to happen.

[Suzanne Goh 0]

 

 

You get the feeling that the British work tirelessly and passionately to limit aviation growth at all costs.

 

And a bit disappointing that Heathrow won't be a 24-hour airport even with the third runway. They could have worked something out like what Haneda did, keeping the airport open at night but with reduced slots for those late timings.

 

Just imagine the potentially astronomical passenger and aircraft movement figures if that were to happen.

Once a nimby always a nimby. We can all sit here and daydream about 500 A380's flying into there daily, but for the chavs down in hounslow... flying's a bit of fun if you is posh innit? - They've never been on the eggham to ruislip bus let alone an airplane. So an expanded heathrow is obviously not a top priority, innit?

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

Why can't they just use government intervention to shoo those NIMBYs away? I'm pretty certain that'll be the course of action if it was done here.

[Y. J. Foo 0]

Why can't they just use government intervention to shoo those NIMBYs away? I'm pretty certain that'll be the course of action if it was done here.

The Labours supported and was close to proceed with the third runway construction before the 2010 election. It apparently was also one of the reason Gordon Brown lost the election; the coalition government of Tories and Lib Dem took over and cancelled LHR expansion plans.

 

And David Cameron apparently is not changing his mind anytime soon, but nonetheless the realities have crept in and he may have to back down on that:

Cameron’s ‘no ifs, no buts’ Heathrow runway stance dealt big blow

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f4f915fa-1fff-11e5-aa5a-398b2169cf79.html#axzz3eho6w2x4

Edited July 2, 2015 by Y. J. Foo

[Alif A. F. 0]

If UK government reluctant to invest in third runway, Other major airports in the continent willing to invest for more 'third runway' to service multiple UK cities (excl. London).

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

The Labours supported and was close to proceed with the third runway construction before the 2010 election. It apparently was also one of the reason Gordon Brown lost the election; the coalition government of Tories and Lib Dem took over and cancelled LHR expansion plans.

 

And herein lies the problem with politicians. Always putting their needs first over the greater good of the country. So what if you're not elected? If it's right for the country it should be done, NIMBY's be damned!

[Waiping 12]

Was in KL last week and someone told me Dr. M's vision for KLIA and Sepang as an aviation hub. Now its slowly tranforming into a shopping hub instead.

[flee 5]

Willie Walsh, chief executive of BA's parent company IAG, says the firm could focus on growing its business from Spain or Ireland rather than London

 

The boss of British Airways has warned he could seek to expand the airline overseas if the Government "twiddles its thumbs" over a third runway at Heathrow.

 

Willie Walsh, chief executive of BA's parent company IAG, which also owns Iberia and Aer Lingus, said the firm could focus on growing its business from Spain or Ireland rather than London.

More here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/12050850/Stop-Heathrow-runway-dithering-or-Ill-take-British-Airways-elsewhere-warns-Willie-Walsh.html

[Kenneth Chong WT 0]

BA-Espana and BA-Ireland ala AirAsia-Indo and AirAsia Thailand?

[BC Tam 2]

BA-Espana and BA-Ireland ala AirAsia-Indo and AirAsia Thailand?

As I understand it, there is no horizontal shareholding, all vertical with IAG as the parent up there

BA doesn't own any of Iberia nor Aer Lingus, such ownership would probably attract too much of anti-trust authorities' attention to make it worthwhile anyway. So the three has remained as British Airways, Iberia and Aer Lingus, well five really if you include IAG Cargo and Vueling

[flee 5]

BA-Espana and BA-Ireland ala AirAsia-Indo and AirAsia Thailand?

IAG is just a holding company - what they are saying is that since LHR cannot be expanded, any expansion of the IAG Group airlines will be done in Ireland and Spain.

[Mulyadir Fitri 0]

 

A full page ad by LGW on the Evening Standard back in early December

[Robert 0]

Just upgrade both :-)